College student dispels myths about war with Iraq

When it comes to the question of war with Iraq, it is easy to conclude from this campus’ sentiments that the anti-war movement has a deep disregard for facts and historical lessons, and replaces them by meaningless rhetoric and irrational myths.
Myth number one: There is no evidence to prove that Iraq is a threat to the U.S. In November 2001, two Iraqi defectors (a Lieutenant General and a senior intelligence officer) said that Iraqi government camps at Salman Pak, near Baghdad, have been training Islamic terrorists since 1995. They also said, “The Gulf War never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this.” The accounts of other defectors such as Sabah Alami, a captain in the Iraqi Army, Hussain al-Shahristani, ex-chief adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and Abu Hamdi Mahmoud, Saddam’s bodyguard, also support this.
In his book Saddam’s Bombmaker, Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi scientist who defected in 1994, details Saddam’s personal obsession with building nuclear weapons and Iraq’s repeated attempts to do so. Somehow, these accounts seem a lot more believable than the faddish proclamations of Sean Penn and Barbara Streisand.
Saddam has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and disregarded the restricted no-fly zones for several years. In addition, the latest weapons inspections – farcical as they are, revealed some worrisome information that has been conveniently ignored by much of the anti-war movement. An example is the discovery of thiodiglycol, a precursor to mustard gas. Iraq has failed to account for 6500 chemical bombs containing about 1000 tons of chemical agents, 8,500 liters of anthrax, 650 kg bacterial growth medium that can be used to make some 5000 more liters of anthrax, stocks of sarin and VX nerve gas, mobile biological weapons labs, and 122 mm chemical rockets. Iraq’s army possesses missiles that exceed the 150 km UN-imposed limit. They have rebuilt casting chambers that can be used to make missiles, and a chemical plant previously destroyed by the UN. Then there are the seventeen empty chemical warheads that inspectors unearthed in January – warheads that Iraq conveniently “forgot” to include in their 12,000-page weapons declaration. And since this is what the inspectors have discovered recently, it is probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Saddam has sponsored terrorism in the past, and his ties to al-Qaida are not tenuous. The Czech government confirmed that Mohammad Atta met Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir Ani in April 2001. Mr. Ani is an Iraqi intelligence officer. A phone call between the deputy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, head of an Iraqi-based al-Qaida cell, and the murderers of an American diplomat in Jordan was intercepted. The caller was caught and questioned, and he revealed the extensiveness of Zarqawi’s recent activities and connections. Ansar al-Islam is an Al-Quaida funded group in Iraqi Kurdistan (operating along a border nicknamed Little Tora Bora). It has drawn over 120 al-Qaida members and refugees. It has engaged in attacks too numerous to list here, and has been supplied with TNT by the Iraqi army.
Myth number two: It is immoral to invade a sovereign country like Iraq. It is perfectly moral to attack a country if it poses a threat to our security. Iraq does pose a threat to U.S. security, and I listed facts to support this. Many of us take our freedom here for granted but we mustn’t forget that it is not a guarantee and we are vulnerable to attacks. We must be quick to protect our liberty when threatened by malevolent forces. War is never desirable, but sometimes it is the only way to counter aggression. In such a situation it is not only necessary, but also a moral imperative. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby said, “The price of peace at any price is death” and he is right. One does not sit around and wait for an attack to happen before retaliating, just like one does not sit around and wait for a disease to afflict one before taking precautionary action. Prevention is better than cure.
Myth number three: Non-military means can work. In 1995, Saddam did not declare the true extent of his nuclear weapons program until he was forced to, just as the Iraqi weapons declaration “forgot” to mention the empty chemical warheads, and the documents detailing recent developments in the nuclear weapons program that were found at the homes two Iraqi physicists. Saddam has lied in the past and to believe he is now honest would be sheer idiocy. Irrational, power-obsessed dictators are traditionally not given to sudden changes of heart. He can pass scores of laws banning chemical weapons, but we should know by now that we cannot trust a man with his history. Rule of law is not a strong point of dictatorships. One can reason with a rational man, but one cannot negotiate with a madman and a criminal. As President Bush articulated this in his State of the Union speech “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”
It is dangerous to ignore what history has taught us. Refraining from preemptive action against Hitler didn’t serve the world well in World War Two, and it will not serve us well now. Saddam is playing games to buy time just like Hitler did in the 1930’s, and if we do nothing about this growing threat it will eventually overpower us. Winston Churchill expressed this sentiment when he said “If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win… if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.”
Myth number four: America should not act unilaterally. If someone threatened my personal security, I wouldn’t wait for the town of Oberlin to approve my taking defensive action. Iraq is not a threat to the United Nations. It is a threat to America and it is America alone that must take action as it sees fit. One cannot live in fear of what others think or say.
Myth number five: This is a war for oil. Here’s a reality check on that conspiracy theory: waging a costly, unpopular and long drawn out war is not a source of free oil for the US – there are far easier ways of acquiring oil. Iraq and many other countries desperate for sources of foreign revenue would be only too happy to sell the US as much oil as we need. And if we wanted more oil, it would be far easier and cheaper to just lift sanctions on Iraq so they could produce at a greater capacity than now. If oil were our sole obsession, why wouldn’t we be looking at less controversial sources like Venezuela? Why didn’t we ‘take over’ oil-rich Kuwait after the Gulf War? ‘No war for oil’ makes for a catchy slogan, but this is not Dr. Evil’s plan to take over the world and these theories are illogical and inconsistent.
Guess who else supports the principled use of military force in Iraq? Aziz al-Taee, spokesman for the Iraqi-American Council: “I think America is doing just fine...we think every day Saddam stays in power, he kills more Iraqis… there is a moral and legal obligation to end Saddam’s regime.” Iraqi soldier Private Abass Shomail who recently escaped into Kurdistan said: “If George Bush wants to give us freedom then we will welcome it.”
If we don’t stand up to this tyrant now, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when it is too late. Winston Churchill said of WWII “There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action”.. This war should not be waged in the names of those who share Saddam Hussein’s moral murkiness the anti-war protestors, Americans or not. It should be waged in the name of freedom, justice and morality everywhere. It should be waged in the name of humanity.

—Malini Kochhar