Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
People in Washington, D.C., want to take Saddam Hussein out while the world is protesting. Are they protesting because they love Saddam? I don’t think so. There is no love lost for Saddam among most of the opponents of the war as far as I can tell.
Part of the unease and ambivalence to the proposed regime change in Iraq is that the Bush team hasn’t answered about what comes next. It hasn’t been able to credibly answer many questions. Saddam Hussien is definitely a threat, but why is he an imminent threat? How does this operation affect the rest of the Middle East? What about Palestine?
The Middle East is a very volatile part of the world. Since the region sits on the majority of the world’s oil supply, what happens there has a direct impact on the global economy. In addition, many other important issues, such North Korea’s intransigence and the heightened tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbors India and Pakistan, are not getting the attention they deserve from the United States and world administrators.
People in Washington are finding themselves in a strange fix. To back down now, after almost a year of making threatening noises about Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction, will mean a serious loss of face and credibility. This will undermine the United States’ ability to confront existing dangers like North Korea and other emerging threats.
Nevertheless, going in alone or in the face of widespread opposition with very few allies has its own set of risks. The United States will be seen as an occupying force in Iraq. This will tap into the Arab-Muslim resentment that groups like Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’ida feed on. This could have repercussions everywhere in the Arab-Muslim world. It could potentially destabilize regimes from the oil-rich monarchy of Saudi Arabia to the nuclear-armed Pakistani dictatorship. It could also undermine the help the U.S. government needs from other countries in rooting out al-Qa’ida cells.
It would help if the administration stops calling the United Nations irrelevant and taking jabs at those who oppose its policies. If you want cooperation from someone, even if you don’t agree with them completely, you don’t point fingers at them and call them names. This is a lesson most of us learned when we were in kindergarten. However, it seems many people in the present administration have somehow missed this valuable lesson. Yes, the United States is the most powerful and successful country the world has seen, but it too needs allies. Needlessly provoking and alienating others is an exercise in futility.
Having already gone the United Nations route, it would be better to give the weapons inspectors more time. However, firm deadlines should be set for Iraqi compliance. If Iraq still does not comply, the United States should lead an international coalition to take Saddam out with as broad a coalition as possible. Military victory may be the easiest part, but the aftermath wouldn’t be as easy. For that, the United States will require all the European and Arab allies it can get. Going into a conflict in the Middle East with a broad coalition like in the first Gulf War will make this venture less risky by spreading the risks.
Vrishali Javeri is a graduate student in business.
