posted on the web on March 31 2003

Country Data

Full Name: United States of America Capital: Washington D.C. Population: 280,562,489 (2002 est.) Location: North America Total area: 9,629,091 sq km Language: English, Spanish Ethnic groups: white 77.1%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Native 1.8% Religions: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2% Currency: US Dollar IGO memberships: G-8, NATO, UN, UNSC, WHO, WTO Internet site: Department of State Source: CIA World Factbook

War with Iraq is unnecessary. There is little question that Saddam Hussein could have been contained and little evidence that he posed an immediate threat to the US. However after a year of Bush’s insensitive and crass “diplomatic” efforts and his constant call for an invasion of Iraq, the US was left in a situation with little choice but to initiate conflict or lose all credibility on the international stage. Thus by last week when Bush first ordered the initial attacks on Iraq I believe it was the best solution given the circumstances.

Many experts such as Kenneth Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs of the National Security Council and one of the most informed officials on intelligence in Iraq, have long believed that containment was eroding. Although I disagree with that, I do agree that only an invasion of Iraq would have truly resolved the problem once and for all. Was this the right time to wage such a war? Perhaps not. However, at the point where the US was a week ago, war should have gone ahead when it did. The Bush administration had pressed so hard for this war that for it to have backed out at that point would have caused the US to lose all credibility in the international community. It would also have been a tremendous win for Saddam. In addition, US troops had also been sitting on other nations’ land for months and from military history, that is a risky undertaking. Countries do not like other people’s troops sitting on their land for long periods of time. The longer we waited to invade Iraq, the costlier the war would have become. It is not strategic to march ones troops onto other people’s land and just let them sit there. They must mobilize as soon as possible. Since Bush had made the unfortunate decision to go ahead with war regardless of UN approval to begin with and the question of whether or not there would be a war was practically moot at this point, it was imperative that we mobilized and got in and out as fast as we could. The Arab nations surrounding Iraq were allowing our troops to sit on their land given that we went in and took out Saddam as soon as possible.

Bush’s linkage of the war on terrorism with the war on Iraq is grossly misleading, however. There is little evidence that Iraq has links with Al Qaeda. He is simply using the war on terrorism as an excuse for doing what he wanted to do -- invade Iraq. North Korea is a much greater threat at this point. The country, unlike Iraq, actually already has possession of nuclear weapons, has flagrantly violated international treaties, has launched several “test” missiles in the direction of Japan in just the last month, and has the capacity to produce atomic bombs at the rate of one per month from now through the summer. By grouping North Korea in the same category as Iraq in his “Axis of Evil” speech, Bush provoked the already isolated and deeply suspicious nation into fear and spurred an increase in their nuclear weapons proliferation. The even more important point is that poverty-ridden North Korea is willing to sell its weapons to anyone who will buy them -- including terrorists. Thus, as opposed to Iraq, there is actually a real link between North Korea and the war on terrorism. As we have all noticed, however, the North Korea problem has been simply waved aside as less crucial than Iraq to our national security by the Bush administration. A bit of hypocrisy perhaps?

The length and number of casualties of this war depend, according to Pollack, on three main unknowns. The first is how hard the Iraqis will fight. As we have seen in the newspapers in the past week, the fact that the Iraqis are indeed fighting back with great intensity may prolong the war. A second element is to what extent Iraq will use WMDs against US forces. A third unknown is how well US forces will be able to avoid extensive urban combat and convince large number of Iraqis to surrender. The greatest question mark is Baghdad. Urban fighting is the most risky for Americans (according to Andrew Krepinevich of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “urban operations tend to be man-power-intensive and to devalue technology -- the exact opposite of how the American military is structured to fight.”) and the most advantageous to the Republican Guard stationed around and within Baghdad. The allies’ principal advantage of technology would be largely ineffective in urban warfare, whereas Saddam’s troops would have the added advantage of knowledge of local terrain. Another danger is that Saddam now has nothing to lose -- he and his regime are being overthrown. To put him in such a desperate situation might spur him to take drastic measures such as launching weapons at Israel.

However, the biggest issue of all is perhaps what will happen after the war. Rebuilding Iraq is not an easy task. The idea that democracy can be established in Iraq is extremely idealistic, if not impossible. Iraq is not another post-World War II Germany or Japan. The different groups in the country are so disagreeable with one another that it would be impossible to establish a true democracy. One of the reasons why Bush Sr. did not go all the way with the Gulf War was because of fear that Iraq would break up. Who will govern? How much will it cost? Will our allies help us, especially with the rift which has arisen between Europe and America since the UN debates? These are all complicated questions which the Bush Jr. administration must think deeply about.

So to sum up my thoughts -- no, initially war was not necessary, Saddam could have been contained, although I do believe that war is the only complete solution to a problem which has dragged on for some time now. Bush’s arguments linking Iraq to the war on terrorism while ignoring the real threats of North Korea are foggy and fail to make logical sense. However, given the circumstances where we were when Bush made the declaration to invade Iraq, it was the best decision. Bush had single-mindedly allowed himself one solution -- war. He had argued so hard for military action and had already sent out troops to the region that it would have been an unsound and humiliating decision to back out at that point. For now, it is better to look forward and focus on what we should do after the war as we cannot go back in history. Post-war, some of America’s most immediate issues to be resolved are the rebuilding of Iraq and the mending of relations with the international community. Multilateralism, unfortunately, was dealt a significant blow by Bush’s insensitive “diplomacy” leading up to the Iraqi conflict. It is important to heal this wound.

Further Reading
1. Kenneth M. Pollack. The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq. New York: Random House, 2002.
2. Richard Betts, "If Saddam Strikes Back," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1 (January-February, 2003), pp. 34-43.
3. Fouad Ajami, "Iraq and the Arabs' Future," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 82, No. 1 (January-February, 2003), pp. 2-18.
4. Grenville, Byford, "The Wrong War," Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 4 (July-August 2002), pp. 34-43.
5. Jessica Tuchman Matthews, "Is There a Better Way to Go?" The Washington Post, February 9, 2003, p. B1, B5.
6. Michael Dobbs, "Now the Essential Question: Is War the Answer?" The Washington Post, February 9, 2003, p. A25.

Alice Wang is a student at Princeton University, USA.