Hussein is still a threat to region
Despite horrors of war, it’s still a understandable action
COMMENTARY
Patrick Jennings

Twelve years ago, I remember feeling very annoyed when my favorite sitcoms were pre-empted for some war thing that every channel had to cover. It ruined my evening. Now, we look to be headed back to the same place.

Despite the popular sentiment around me, it’s the right choice.

Twelve years ago, we stopped a dictator from controlling a large chunk of the world’s oil.

However, the dictator was left in his seat of power after the United Nations decided it only had the authority to protect Kuwait, not create a “regime change.” The United States pulled support from any groups wanting to overthrow Saddam. Hussein is still in charge, still has a large army and has some incredibly nasty weapons in his arsenal.

Hussein is a threat to the region’s stability. We know he assists terrorists, al Qaeda or otherwise. We know he has committed genocide on the Kurds using chemical weapons.

We know he has taken a country in the cradle of civilization with vast resources and impeded its growth. And yet, the idea of removing him from office is abhorrent to people.

The argument is that we just want oil. Maybe Dubya is enacting his dad’s revenge. That, or the government is trying to move public attention away from the economy. We shouldn’t go to war because there isn’t enough international support.

Iraq is a part of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and OPEC is the one determining how much oil is on the market. If the embargo on Iraqi oil is lifted, there may be a small increase in supply, but otherwise they’ll protect their reserves. The United States will not take direct control of Iraq in any shape or form. The idea that this is revenge is so silly. I can’t bring myself to waste more than one sentence rebutting it. If Bush learned anything from his father, it’s that you can’t escape questions about the economy during a re-election bid. So if this is a distracting tactic, it’s incredibly dumb.

Despite opinions about Bush, he surrounds himself with very smart people.

International support was waning when the United States kept its information about Iraq to itself. Germany and France didn’t see anything horribly wrong on the surface, so they couldn’t understand fighting a war. Last week, Colin Powell gave this information to the UN Security Council. He showed the chemical weapon plants. He showed the cover-ups.

He showed the link to a senior member of al Qaeda. He showed the rest of world what we already knew and, for the most part, they understood. Several smaller nations are already in our camp. France and Germany are a lot closer to joining up than they were before, while Russia and China are keeping their distance.

The doves push the point that if we go to war, people will die. “We’ll be mass murderers if we go to war”, is how one of my buddies put it. That’s true. When you drop a bomb on someone’s head, they die. I wish we could fight a war with no loss of life, but unless we agree to settle this over a game of Madden 2003, it isn’t going to happen. My only counter to this is that people will die if we don’t remove Saddam. Again, he funds terrorists, and terrorists kill people. He probably has chemical weapons, and chemical weapons kill people. He has a large army and is on unfriendly terms with about three different neighbors.

Saddam can end this. Unfortunately, he has decided to block or obstruct weapons inspections for years. He has shown contempt for the international community at large. Many countries are trying to arrange a peaceful exile for him but to no avail.

War is hell. I don’t want to see us go to war. However, this war is at least understandable and justifiable. I pray for peace and that cooler heads may prevail.

Patrick Jennings is a freshman economics major from Melbourne, Fla. He can be reached at (p.a.jennings@tcu.edu).