|
Bush
vs. Hussein 2:
the son follows in daddy’s footsteps
The Bush administration should consider the consequences
of an attack on Saddam Hussein and Iraq before implementing their
“regime change.”
Commentary - Andrew Dyer
The
Bush administration is currently bandying about the need for a “regime
change” when discussing what should happen in Iraq. This term
is nothing but another in a long line of euphemisms like “collateral
damage” for bombing an Afghani wedding party by mistake.
Let’s be honest with ourselves: “regime change” means
assassinating Saddam Hussein. Such an elimination of a national
leader violates our own laws.
There is much internal debate in the Bush administration as to whether
we should attack Iraq. The public, however, only hears the faintest
of whispers as to what is being discussed behind closed doors.
The current administration apparently values secrecy above open
debate on a topic that will have a strong influence on the course
of this country in the world community. Under the guise of national
security, the public at large is being kept out of the loop.
We are transgressing an even greater rule which we expect all other
nations to observe: Do not attack another country unless it is in
self-defense. Is what they are referring to as a pre-emptive strike
truly justified in this case? Speculation about the development
of biological or gas warfare is not enough.
If the Bush administration has evidence that calls for a strike
against Baghdad, this evidence should be placed on the table for
the American people, Congress and our allies to evaluate before
we find ourselves being bogged down in another Middle Eastern quagmire.
The Iraqi people are not going to rise up and welcome our invasion
of their homeland. The Iraqi opposition is splintered and no more
democratically inclined than Saddam. Going into Baghdad will require
our own military fighting street to street in a city hostile to
their presence.
The world’s last remaining superpower will win the war eventually,
but how many Americans must die to fulfill a vague compulsion that
our current president feels is more important than securing our
borders here at home?The international public fails to see any upside
or benefit from a U.S. attack on Iraq. Currently, no one except
Britain has signed on to such a risky adventure, and some of our
closest allies have advised against it. Former national security
adviser Brent Scowcroft along with former Secretary of State James
Baker, both advisors during George H.W. Bush’s administration,
have warned that a venture into Iraq might very well spoil the international
war against terrorism. It could also set the entire Middle East
ablaze in a conflagration that would make the oil-field fires of
Kuwait pale in comparison.
The scenario continues to become more and more dismal as one thinks
of the possibilities. Unless the current administration can come
up with enough evidence to convince the American public, Congress
and the world that military action against Saddam Hussein is warranted,
we should not, regardless of our need for oil, continue to bog down
ourselves in distant parts of the world.
If President Bush were to look to the section of his history book
titled Vietnam, he would be enlightened to the consequences of going
to war without public support.
President Bush has repeatedly said he is a patient man and that
he will consider all options concerning the “regime change”
in Iraq. One must hope that as he weighs the counsel of his advisors,
he will follow the diplomatic path that is apparently being advocated
by Sec. Colin Powell and not that of the bellicose hawks in his
cabinet who wish to march gloriously into Baghdad over the corpses
of our armed forces.
|
|
Editorial
Policies
Editorial policy: The content of the Opinion page does not necessarily
represent the views of Texas Christian University. Unsigned editorials
represent the view of the TCU Daily Skiff editorial board. Signed
letters, columns and cartoons represent the opinion of the writers
and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.
Letters
to the editor: The Skiff welcomes letters to the editor for publication.
Letters must be typed, double-spaced, signed and limited to 250
words. To submit a letter, bring it to the Skiff, Moudy 291S;
mail it to TCU Box 298050; e-mail it to skiffletters@tcu.edu or
fax it to 257-7133. E-mailed letters should be included in the body
of the e-mail, not in the form of an attachment. Letters must include
the author’s classification, major and phone number. The Skiff
reserves the right to edit or reject letters for style, taste and
size restrictions.
|
