Last Friday, I was walking back from the Dartmouth bookstore at two in the afternoon when I ran into a "mini-demonstration" of protesters. They numbered about ten or so and were bundled up in winter coats holding signs that proclaimed loudly, "Iraqis are not terrorists," making the same points as the "Why War" campaign on campus.
Frankly, I wonder how much of the current debate is reactionary -- as opposed to rational -- in nature. It is true that we can never let the memories of war-time atrocities and human losses in wars like Vietnam fade away. At the same time, we cannot allow these losses to prevent us -- not just the United States acting unilaterally, but the international community -- from taking action if necessary. The option of using military force should always be available; if an international community is serious about negating the possible threat of weapons of mass destruction by a rogue nation, it must not hesitate to act if necessary. This willingness to act should be a deterrent to any rational rogue nation that is considering unleashing chemical or biological agents upon the target of its choice.
How, then, does one quantify what is "necessary"? Undoubtedly, the decision to go to war is a monumental one, and it has enormous economic, social and political ramifications. Most important is the need for due thought and consideration in the policy-making process. The decision to go to war cannot be trivial; it must not be motivated by the successes or failures of previous campaigns or by personal vendettas. The United Nations weapons inspectors must be given the necessary time and resources to carry out a full and thorough appraisal of Iraq's claims that it does not have such weapons in its possession.
The intelligence agencies of the world should share any information that they have on the Saddam regime; the carefully timed release of bit pieces of information as a tool to garner political support must stop. The necessary intelligence must be collated and presented in a transparent and open manner so that the debate can proceed along more constructive lines, as opposed to the rhetoric that has dominated recent discussions in the U.N. Security Council. There needs to be more cooperation and less conflict, especially considering the exigency of the situation at hand.
Signs saying, "Iraqis are not terrorists," are dangerous because they threaten to blind us to the evidence of the past. True, the Iraqis are not terrorists per se, but one cannot ignore the fact that they placed numerous obstacles in front of U.N. inspectors in 1998 -- so many that inspectors were forced to withdraw. The Iraqi story is that after forcing out all the inspectors, they happily proceeded to disarm themselves voluntarily and disposed of their caches of chemical and biological weapons. The recent discovery of empty munitions shells in Iraq provides an insight into the plausibility of such a story.
Furthermore, one must remember that the U.N. weapons inspectors are doing their job in a foreign land -- as Hans Blix has reiterated many times -- and they can only carry out their task if Iraq gives its full cooperation. Thus far, the cooperation seems cosmetic; Hans Blix's reports have been mixed at best -- on the 27th of January, he stated that Iraq had shown "no genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm.
Additionally, the weapons inspectors continue to encounter cases in which, upon reaching the destination of a "surprise spot-check," the gates to the complex have already been opened with smiling personnel awaiting the arrival of weapons inspectors. This is dubious at best and, given Iraq's dismal record, Saddam should not be given the benefit of the doubt. His recent (very public) decree banning the manufacture and importation of weapons of mass destruction is welcome, but at the same time it must be recognized that this should have come long before. Yes, Iraq can and should be given time to prove their willingness to cooperate; however, this offer cannot be extended indefinitely.
It is dangerous for the United States to act unilaterally. Although it may be frustrating that the international community is unwilling to cooperate on the material enforcement of Resolution 1441 -- the document that called on Iraq to disarm or face the consequences of possible military action -- the United States must try to co-opt the other nations into accepting its stance.
The challenge is to provide irrefutable proof that Iraq is in possession of chemical or biological weapons; this would prove that Iraq has been lying about its apparent disarmament and that it has violated Resolution 1441. Undoubtedly, building up such a strong case is hard given that, as mentioned before, the most straightforward way to procure such evidence is through the Iraqis themselves.
The intelligence agencies of various nations must prove their worth and their willingness to cooperate and pool their resources internationally. Now is not the time to see who can find out what first; it's time to hunker down and come to a joint conclusion internationally as to what we should do next.
At the same time, the United Nations must not be afraid to act if Iraq is found guilty of violating Resolution 1441. A strong stance must be made somewhere; a repeat of the appeasement that was accorded to Hitler before World War II must be avoided. Present-day Iraq is nowhere near as powerful as Germany was but we must send a message to the world's rogue nations that if they step out of line and threaten us, they can rest assured that they will not get away with it.
This is especially necessary given the recent revelation of North Korea's clandestine weapons program in spite of international efforts to limit arms development in that country. War must be a last resort -- but it must be an action that the international community is willing to take if deemed necessary. France's wielding of the veto and its call for weapons inspectors to be given more time is fair, but it cannot carry on indefinitely. At some point, the line needs to be drawn and tough decisions have to be made.
