Attacking Iraq may not succeed in eliminating terrorism,
containing Saddam Hussein, and preventing his use of weapons of
mass destruction against the United States, but it will certainly
cost billions of dollars and thousands of innocent Iraqi and
American lives.
There are several alternative plans to handling terrorism and
oil consumerism, which pro-war advocates should look into before
claiming that Bush detractors don’t provide any feasible
alternatives to war. Bush’s plan may be simpler than
others (in fact, simplicity itself, given the circumstances,
warrants immediate skepticism), but it is the antithesis of
progress.
When Bruins and American citizens who actually participate
in electoral politics go to the polls on Nov. 5, they should ask
themselves whether they are more secure than they were a year
ago.
Yes, the United States defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, but
the country itself is sinking into chaos. Neighboring,
nuclear-armed Pakistan and India ““ both wracked by terrorism
““ are closer to a disastrous war. Al-Qaeda appears to
have revived; witness the recent bombings on Bali, in the
Philippines, and a French oil tanker in Yemen. Even the suburbs of
Washington, DC have been terrified by a sniper that, like bin
Laden, has not been found.
Americans fear not only for their lives but also for their jobs,
savings and civil rights. Will President Bush’s plan to
attack and occupy Iraq make any of these more secure? Only
days before Congress voted to authorize war, CIA Director George
Tenet undermined the administration’s case by saying that war
is the one circumstance that would make Saddam Hussein likely to
use unconventional weapons or transfer them to terrorists.
Even our traditional allies have warned us that attacking Iraq
will throw the Middle East into chaos and promote global terrorism.
Yet, the Bush administration has scorned practical alternatives,
from global arms control to domestic gun control. As we
prepare to spend billions of dollars fighting Iraq (and potentially
much more in years of occupation), we can find less and less for
health and education. Who remembers that Bush campaigned as
“the education President”?
With their past in oil and arms industries, President Bush and
Vice President Cheney are willing to ask the nation to pay any
price to conquer Iraq, which has the world’s second largest
oil reserves. They are also involving the United States in
oil-rich Colombia’s tragic civil war.Â
Yet, they have shortchanged alternative energy sources, such as
wind, solar, fuel cells and energy-efficiency, which could
make us less dependent on imported oil. If the United States
neglects these, we will find that we are no longer technologically
competitive in a world that takes climate change seriously. We
will face continuous war and terrorism, as well as global warming,
etc.
Dropping bombs will not solve our real problems. The
political implications of a unilateral, preventative attack of the
United States are great, and the anticipated responses
of Hussein, terrorists and the global community are
frightening. Bush’s plan, endorsed by some morally corrupt
members of Congress, and supported by various misinformed, blindly
patriotic American citizens, is rash, ill-advised and tragic.
It ignores common sense and alternative plans
for meaningful, long-lasting, positive change in the
world.
Voters who know this should drop candidates who don’t.