Why War With Iraq by Jeff Jackson (11/01/02)
The Land of the Free - A Conservative Politics Web Site
Today's topic is why should the U.S. engage Iraq with military power.
Back in the early 1990s Iraq invaded a sovereign nation called Kuwait who had taken no aggressive stance towards Iraq. Note here the term sovereign nation. Kuwait was no match for President Hussein's superior army and was quickly defeated.
Now, had Kuwait attacked Iraq first, then I would say Iraq has a right to defend herself and lay claim to any conquered lands. This is typically what happens in something we like to refer to as war.
However Iraq attacked first.
After this, a coalition of countries liberated Kuwait and routed Iraq's military. Some will say that it was strictly for oil. And while that may have had a partial role we can not overlook the fact that it was the right thing to do strictly from a stand point of protecting a nation's sovereignty. After all, for all you out there that promote the UN as the great savior of this world, it is part of what the UN was formed to do.
As Iraq's broken army fled and was pummeled all the way back to Baghdad a ceasefire was called. As also generally happens in this little thing we like to refer to as war, the victors (read the U.S. and her allies) set the terms and the defeated (read as Iraq) either accepts them or we continue to hand them their rears in body bag after body bag. The UN drew up a list of terms (our first mistake) which included Iraqi disarmament, and UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq agreed to these terms of the ceasefire.
Since that time, Iraq has continually hindered UN inspectors (violating the terms of the ceasefire), and failed to disarm (violating the terms of the ceasefire). They even admitted as late as 1995 that they had nuclear weapons programs which they had denied since 1991.
For those of you who are products of outcomes based education, when one side violates the terms of a ceasefire that ends a war it means basically the war is still on. If this were NOT true then what would be the point to winning a war? We'd all just sign agreements and then everyone would go back to doing what they had been doing.
By Iraq failing to uphold its end of the ceasefire we and our allies from the early 1990s are still in effect in a state of war with Iraq. We have been in this state of war since the minute we decided to help liberate an invaded Kuwait. It has never ceased to be.
As such, we must continue to bombard Iraq with military power until they not only AGREE to the terms of a ceasefire, but also COMPLY with the terms of a ceasefire.
Is it about oil? Partially. Is it about finishing what needs to be done? Definitely.
When you allow countries to violate the terms of agreements you are reduced to having no power and when you have no power you are a slave to those that seek to circumvent the age old rules of war. And until a war is finished, all sides continue to suffer needlessly.
American Conservative Daily
to be notified when this site is updated?
T-shirts & Gifts