Editorial
Not when, but how
Judging by President Bushs press conference on Thursday, it seems that
war on Iraq is a foregone conclusion. This means that Oberlin students, both those who are for
and those who are against this war, should begin to think ahead. What potential pitfalls lie in
the future, for Americans and for the world? Or, to expand on a question asked of Bush on Thursday:
whats the worst case scenario?
To begin with, consider Bushs overt motive for war disarming Saddam Hussein. Even
many of those who oppose this war admit that Iraq likely retains a stockpile of chemical and biological
weapons. Does it stand to reason, then, that if Saddam is faced with certain destruction, he will
lose his inhibitions about using them? That is, wont going to war to get rid of these weapons
have the ironic effect of creating a cause for those same weapons to be used? Remember that Saddam
has had months to try to infiltrate America which he succeeded in doing during the first
Gulf War, although last time his agents botched the job. While removing Saddam from power may increase
homeland security in the long run, the near future seems much less certain.
And even if Saddam does not employ his weapons of mass destruction, will the occupying American
forces be able to contain their spread from Iraq? Secretary of State Colin Powell has made much
of Iraqs mobile biological weapons labs. But if we cant find them now, the chances
of our finding them in the fog of war also seem dim. Where these mobile labs end up could be a
matter of life or death for thousands, both in the region and around the world.
Second is a question of metaphors. Certain members of the Bush administration have done their best
to convince the world that Saddam in 2003 is analogous to Hitler in 1938 that appeasing
Saddam now will only create a graver threat in the future, and that he must be dealt with early,
before he blossoms into a greater danger. But should we really be thinking August, 1914?
In World War I, the great powers were convinced that a short, decisive war would be the best way
to secure their own interests in the future. And, of course, they went on to unleash the most destructive
conflict ever seen until World War II.
The Middle East today seems to be a tenuous balance of power that could easily be upset. Kani Xulam,
director of the American Kurdish Information Network, has predicted that the Turkish government
will use the upcoming conflict as an excuse to occupy northern Iraq nominally, to protect
the rights of ethnic Turkmen now living there. The Kurds who, just across the border, waged
a partisan war against Turkey for years would doubtless resist. Iran, too, has moved troops
into northern Iraq. Mr. Xulam predicted they would side with the Kurds against the Turks in order
to keep Turkey from controlling northern Iraq.
How, then, should America react to a bloody war between its nominal allies, the Kurds and the Turks
with Iran thrown haphazardly into the mix?
Third, we must consider the cost of the war and the following occupation, and the United States
commitment over the long term. American officials have placed the top-end price tag for a war in
Iraq at $200 billion. But few major wars in history have cost anything less than multiple times
what the planners estimated before the knives came out. A recent study by a leading think-tank
in the U.K. predicted that rebuilding Iraq will take 10 years, more or less. Are Americans prepared
to foot the bill, and to maintain the commitment that rebuilding Iraq will take? Or will the U.S.
shirk its responsibilities as soon as its economy takes a turn for the worse?
Recognizing the overbearing probability of war is not to suggest that protest no longer serves
a purpose, or that Oberlin students concerned over the state of world affairs should refrain from
active dissent. Instead, the issues should be refocused. American leaders must remember that their
citizens are watching. After all, the question today is not when, but how.
Editorials are the responsibility of the Review editorial boardthe Editors in Chief,
Managing Editor and Commentary Editorand do not necessarily reflect the view of the staff
of the Review.
|