If UCLA students, faculty, staff and alumni aren’t worried
about the danger of a potential war in Iraq, then they certainly
should be.
The official administration line on the war is that America must
combat evil and the threat of terrorism. In the aftermath of Sept.
11, 2001, Iraq is a thorn in Bush’s side. Furthermore, we are
told, in order to eliminate Iraq’s abilities to build, use,
and share with terrorists a devastating arsenal of mass
destruction, Saddam has to go. The administration hopes to preserve
Iraq’s territories and oil infrastructure so that the country
and its economy won’t have to rebuild “from
scratch”. Finally, the administration wants to establish a
positive environment for the development of democratic government
in Iraq.
However, even if Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction
(like many other countries in the world), it may be extremely
difficult to prove their existence. Chemical or biological weapons
could be stored in moving vehicles or in another Arab country
because of their small size.
Failure to find proof of the existence of banned weapons would
be very damaging to President Bush’s case for a preemptive
strike.
More importantly, despite the tough talk, the Bush
administration has barely begun to grapple with the details
involved in taking out Saddam. More than a decade ago, military
actions against Iraq failed in this objective. Now, as
administration policy makers try to work out a plan, they have
simply succeeded in creating some confusion among Middle Eastern
countries, who are not, like the United States, 8,000 miles safely
away from Iraq’s borders. In addition, it is not at all
guaranteed that a Normandy-style beach landing of ground combat
troops would be able to capture the southern Rumaila oil fields
intact, and without any resistance.
Besides, going to war for oil is not a good excuse on our side.
Any pretext of “running out” of oil is not persuasive.
We cannot put a real and valuable energy conservation program aside
to spend almost $60 billion to conduct war to maintain our status
as the world’s biggest “fuel eater.” If we go to
war, we are just signaling to the rest of the world that this war
is not being fought for the world’s right to stability but to
preserve our wasteful lifestyles.
After Bush’s callous refusal to attend the United
Nation’s world summit on poverty, other U.N. participants
will not be easily convinced that the United States’ primary
motivation for war is its concern for the Iraqi people. Beginning
in February, Germany will chair a U.N. subcommittee on the Middle
East. Since Germany’s Chancellor Schroeder had made it clear
that Germany will not actively participate in a war against Iraq,
don’t expect any support from that quarter.
Russia, China and France have previously voiced opposition to
the war. Even Great Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair, who
has a long history of supporting Bush’s actions, is
struggling to gain the support of his party and his people for a
military showdown. Nor does it seem likely that Muslim nations will
answer Bush’s call to arms. Quite the contrary:
Turkey’s new government barred the United States from using
its military bases to launch an invasion of Iraq. Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia are hesitant allies, and Iran was antagonized by
Bush’s “Axis of Evil” doctrine.
To the majority of Americans, however, war seems inevitable. But
avoidable or not, we should pay close attention to two things.
First, where will our government come up with $60 billion? Is the
budget set aside for education going to be slashed again by fickle
legislators?
Moreover, if we really are marching off to war, then who will
fight it? The U.S. war plan would require military or national
service from at least 200,000 men and women, ages 18 to 26, raised
perhaps through the mechanism of the draft, the possibility of
which has been discussed. If that becomes reality, UCLA students
could be among the drafted. That would mean some of your friends,
male and female, soon will not be able to learn, study, meet, or
party with you at this university.
The issue at hand is personal. I do not want to wake up one
morning and discover that some of my best friends are no longer
with me.