President Bush wants to commit the U.S. to a war with Iraq. Getting Saddam Hussein out of power sounds like a good idea, but then, our government once thought arming, training and funding the Mujahedin in Afghanistan to drive out the Soviets was a good idea. Our machinations and manipulations may yet reap us another bitter harvest.
If Hussein believes he has nothing left to lose, our “pre-emptive” strike may well provoke him to attack. Iraqi missiles cannot nearly reach the U.S., but might strike Israel. Israel has 200 nuclear warheads and intermediate range missiles. An Israeli nuclear strike on Iraq would further destabilize the Middle East. Iran also feels threatened by U.S. plans, and has said it would not stand by and allow us to attack. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Also, what precedent would a U.S. attack set for the world? If the United States can attack Iraq because it might one day acquire weapons of mass destruction, why can’t India attack Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons today? The U.S. government estimates nuclear war between India and Pakistan would immediately kill 12 million people – and many more from radiation-related illnesses over the years.
Instead of leaping (without looking) into the abyss (and potential quagmire) of war, let’s assemble a tough team of inspectors whose sole purpose is to hunt illicit weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration complicates this task by announcing it’s also trying to overthrow or kill Hussein, giving him an excuse to reject the inspectors as spies. Let’s focus on controlling the weapons.
Starting a war with Iraq may be simple. Dealing with the long-term consequences is not.
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
