Recent articles in the Daily Bruin, not to mention many student
groups on campus, seem outraged at the thought of a preemptive war
against Iraq.
But their stance is strange given that preemptive action is
accepted and embraced by our society. Take for example a man who
waves a gun in your face screaming and yelling. No reasonable
persons would wait for him to fire a shot before defending
themselves. There is also no question whether or not you are
allowed to use deadly force on a burglar who comes into your house
late at night.
In the international world, there was no preemptive action
against Afghanistan even after the bombing of the USS Cole and two
African embassies. No one can argue they don’t feel safer
without the Taliban giving bin Laden free reign and the comfort to
plan attacks and write books on chemical and biological
warfare.
And how much safer would the world have been if there was a
preemptive attack when the first signs of trouble started?
Moreover, the innocent people killed in the war against Afghanistan
did not come to one hundredth of those killed in the world trade
center bombings. Preemptive action is valid and necessary.
With that in mind, we must decide if Iraq is a valid target for
preemptive action. Is it waving a gun in America’s face? The
comparison of Iraq to a school bully who can be defeated without
violence, suggested in Michelle Singer’s October 1 column,
shows that people are missing a bigger picture. America is being
directly threatened by the regime of Saddam Hussein. He is waving a
gun in America’s face, and it shouldn’t wait for him to
shoot.
Hussein has used biological and chemical weapons on Iran in
previous wars and has even used them on people in his own country
who oppose him. These facts are indisputable. If Hussein had a
nuclear weapon he would have no reservations about giving it to a
terrorist to use in America. Personally I would feel better if
people like Hussein were not in power. I would rather see a
preemptive attack where far fewer innocents would die than a
nuclear weapon going off in downtown Los Angeles.
The fact that other countries are not allied with us is
meaningless. Of course the international community, especially
France, does not want a war with Iraq. In their minds Iraq only
threatens the United States. Why should they care if Iraq sends
terrorists to our country to bomb our buildings?
The people who are reasonably threatened by a gun should take
the necessary means to protect themselves. America should do the
same. Hussein had plenty of opportunities to comply with
inspectors. While I believe the Iraqi people should be allowed to
make their own decisions, I fear they don’t have the power to
make decisions. They are not awarded the same liberties we have
here. The Iraqi people did not choose Hussein freely, and they are
not free to speak out against him for fear of becoming the next
victims of his chemical warfare experiment.
In addition, they are fed news from Hussein claiming the reason
they are starving is because the United States has imposed
sanctions on them and not because he is spending his money trying
to develop weapons of mass destruction. In an Iraq without basic
liberties, Hussein is free to brainwash a nation to hate the United
States.
Let us hope we don’t let this one slide only to regret it
later.