Invasion of Iraq necessary for our freedom
It seems that President’s Bush next step in the war on terror will be to pay a visit to our old buddy Iraq. This is the most logical move on our leader’s part, especially considering past relations with Iraq and Bush’s recent urge to start taking out his self-proclaimed “axis of evil.”
However, the idea of more bloodshed that would occur in a costly, violent war raises numerous doubts and questions about the validity of an attack. Is Iraq attack a necessary target? Is Saddam Hussein such a threat to our national security that the president is willing to risk United States casualties and alliances with certain oil countries in order to take him out?
The answer to those questions is simple. Yes. Of course Hussein will attack the United States if the chance ever arises; in my mind, it’s only a question of when it will happen.
Hussein hasn’t let United Nations weapons inspectors inside Iraq in nearly four years. This could mean plenty of things; maybe he doesn’t want the world to see how dirty he keeps the place or he’s afraid we won’t like the Iraqi taste in wallpaper. My guess is that he’s hiding a nice bit of anthrax, lots of scud missiles and a few nuclear weapons.
One need only look at Hussein’s track record to see his clear dislike of America. Eleven years ago, he invaded Kuwait and was ready to march into Saudi Arabia until the United States showed up and sent the Iraqis back home. Hussein hates Bush and would probably love nothing more than to exact revenge on the son of the president who humiliated him in the Gulf War. If the man is sadistic enough to gas his own people, there’s no telling what he could have in store for us if we don’t act first.
Perhaps the biggest question an attack brings up is that if Saddam is so dangerous, why didn’t we take him out during the Gulf War when we had the chance? The U.S. army was there and we knew what he could do if he ever gained weapons of mass destruction, yet we let him live and continue to be a presence in the world. Why?
Maybe the United Nations thought sanctions would hurt him more and then it could control him. It was wrong. Looking at the present situation, how can we be sure the military will be able to go through with such a mission successfully? If we wouldn’t take him out in 1991 with the whole world behind us, why try it now with only half the world’s support?
Who cares? He’s a terrorist and he has to go no matter what. If we don’t get rid of him, he’ll get rid of us. Sounds savage, but it’s the reality of the world we live in today. Other countries may not like it, but none of them had terrorists crash planes into their monuments.
While I’m all for going to battle with Iraq, I understand that it wouldn’t be anything like the combat in Afghanistan. For one, Iraq has a stable government, a stable army and more up-to-date weapons than the Taliban. The invasion campaign would be different as well. Our soldiers wouldn’t be able to fly around and drop smart bombs on remote caves and then head back to base; more ground troops would be involved, and more casualties are likely. We also wouldn’t have the luxury of Saudi Arabian military bases to use for an attack (Remember, they’re not big on an Iraqi invasion).
Going to war with Iraq wouldn’t be pretty and it wouldn’t rid the world of terror, but it needs to be done. Hussein is the personification of terror and if he’s allowed to stay in power, it will send a strong message to the rest of the world — America only wants to fight terrorism if it’s convenient, not if it will save innocent lives.
With the events of Sept. 11 still fresh in the world’s mind, I don’t think that’s the message we want to send to the leaders of terror. If President Bush is serious about eliminating terrorism, Iraq has to be the next target. Our freedom depends on it.
Jason Martin