Iraq war an act of self-defense aimed at peace

This week marks the one-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of
Iraq and provides a valuable opportunity to discuss the great
successes and accompanying shortcomings of the current Gulf
War.

It must first be noted that weapons of mass destruction have not
been found. This could mean one of four things:

1. They never really existed.

2. They exist but have not been found.

3. They were destroyed.

4. They were moved.

The first argument is debunked by the fact Saddam Hussein used
weapons of mass destruction in the late 1980s against the Kurds in
his country ““ we know he had the weapons at some point.

The second option is more plausible but still unlikely. As the
months go by, the prospects of finding weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq grow dimmer and most likely, they will not be found.

The third and fourth alternatives are more feasible. The weapons
could have easily been destroyed, sold or transported in the decade
Iraq toyed with U.N. weapons inspectors and international
observers.

Of course this does not excuse the fact the CIA, British
intelligence, the United Nations, former President Bill Clinton and
President Bush all claimed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
when allied forces invaded Iraq. Measures must continue to be taken
to find out where the breakdown in intelligence occurred.

But centering all critical examination on the mysterious weapons
would miss the real significance of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

It must also be noted that we liberated 30 million Iraqis from a
monstrous dictator. Human shredders, mass graves and prisons for
children were all found and destroyed. According to USA Today,
Hussein’s “interrogators regularly used pliers to
remove men’s teeth, electric prods to shock men’s
genitals and drills to cut holes in their ankles.”

These conditions have now been eradicated. Nevertheless, it
would be a mistake to think ““ in spite of the
administration’s dubbing of the war as “Operation Iraqi
Freedom” ““ that the invasion was an act of altruism or
compassion.

It was, and rightly so, an act of self-defense.

This Gulf War has made the United States and the world a safer
place to live. Conservative activist and prominent author David
Horowitz has frequently asked, “Who, on Sept. 12, 2001, would
have bet that there would not be another terrorist attack in the
United States in the next two years?” The answer: no one.

Despite all fears, there has not been another terrorist attack
on U.S. soil. And a major factor in our safety has been President
Bush’s vigilance in seeking out and destroying the threat of
terrorism.

The one real-world consequence of Bush’s actions in Iraq
surfaced in December 2003, when Moammar Gadhafi, the vicious
dictator of Libya, agreed to disarm and allow international weapons
inspectors into his country. Was the tyrant’s decision based
on a moral epiphany? Of course not. His decision was based on
practicality.

The war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq have at the very
least made it harder for rogue nations and despots to harbor
terrorists and hide weapons of mass destruction. They have learned
that if they do not disarm, they will be disarmed; and if they
continue to harbor terrorists, they will face dire
consequences.

Terrorists will always be aggressive. But as the war on terror
progresses, fewer nations will sponsor terrorism and terrorists
will slowly become extinct.

Last week, Iraq adopted an interim constitution. For the first
time, all Iraqis will have a chance to be free, regardless of
creed, complexion, religion and ethnicity. It may take years, if
not decades, for Iraq to fully understand and adopt a republican
government, but they are on the right track.

The people of Iraq are taking positive steps toward establishing
a fair government and a free society.

So was it worth it? Was the war the only and final solution? The
simple answer is yes. To demonstrate this, I can think of nothing
more convincing than to point to a figure of my own calculation:
Far more people were killed in the average year of
“peace” under Saddam Hussein than in the average year
of “war” against Saddam Hussein.

War is a painful enterprise. But if the United States can topple
a dictator, free a people, bolster the Middle East, deter states
that harbor terrorists and crush the terrorists themselves, all
while reducing casualty rates, I say it has no choice but to
act.

Peace must be defended.

Hovannisian is a first-year history and philosophy student.
E-mail him at ghovannisian@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *