President’s threat to Iraq is a violation of sovereignty, assault on Hussein
Administration attributes threat on Iraq to its potential possession of weapons of mass destruction, however more moderate measures could be adopted without transgressing country’s supremacy.
COMMENTARY
Josh Mcdonald

In a recent opinion article, fellow student Christopher Suffron argued that invading Iraq would be fitting with the rights and responsibilities of the U.S. government. This viewpoint, however, ignores the clear boundaries on legitimate presidential authority. The Bush administration’s open-ended threat to Saddam Hussein may not constitute terrorism, yet it does represent an ethical challenge to Iraqi sovereignty.

Attacking Iraq would clearly be an act of war. The international community, and most Americans, considers instigators of war to be aggressors and, as such, violators of international law. President Bush’s attempt to garner U.N. support does not and will not make such an act legitimate, except as a last resort. Confronted with this fact, the administration argues that attacking Iraq is justified because its potential weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to global security. That would be the case if the president was willing to limit the attacks to eliminating this strategic threat.

Instead, Bush continues to push for regime change, essentially advocating the overthrow of Hussein. This further violation of Iraqi sovereignty demonstrates the president’s arrogance and his continual ignorance of foreign affairs. Even if we agree that Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction does in fact endanger the American people, in no way has Bush established that Hussein himself poses an inherent threat. Our nation has a history of forbidding the forcible removal of foreign governments, in policy if not in practice, and the president would do well to study it. His open and avowed assault on Hussein reeks of illegitimate abuse of power.

Finally, note that popular opinion reigns supreme over presidential power. Our government may have different rights, but we ought not forget that individuals generate those rights. Since he lacks a clear mandate from the American people, Bush cannot legitimately attack Iraq. The legal loopholes invoked by presidential lawyers to justify his agenda cannot stand up under the weight of national and international disapproval.

Bush should opt for a more moderate solution, toughening inspections and reinforcing them with international pressure and increased threats. If recent British reports are indeed correct, maintaining U.N. sanctions should be enough to prevent Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. With popular support for tougher inspections already in place, backing down from regime change and toning down his rhetoric would increase Bush’s sagging political capital. Otherwise, the still-young president looks increasingly like a warmonger.

Josh McDonald is a senior philosophy and English major from Garland.