Column: Is war with Iraq a just solution?

"Initially there was at least an implication," said Gen. Anthony Zinni, as reported in Newsweek, "that Iraq was linked to terrorism, when that link couldn't be made, it was possession of weapons of mass destruction. When that case couldn't be made, it was lack of cooperation. Right now, it's down to 'You won't let us talk to your scientists' as the reason for going to war. And 'we know what Iraqis have, but we can't tell you.'" Recently, Iraq started destroying Al-Samoud missiles, but the White House dismissed it as "a game of deception." No matter what Iraq does, it is insufficient. It sounds a bit like La Fontaine's tale of The Wolf and the Lamb, where the wolf accuses the lamb of mischief, and when all the accusations prove false, eats the lamb anyways. Similarly, America seems hell bent on war with Iraq. Why?

President George W. Bush's biggest sales pitch to the American people is that pre-emption prevents another Sept. 11 or worse. Weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's hands are dangerous because he can use them or proliferate them to other states or organizations that might use them against the U.S or Israel. Michael Walzer argues that military pre-emption is legitimate only if there is sufficient threat to the state. Furthermore, this threat cannot be boastful ranting of politicians, or military preparation characteristic of an arms race, but has to be troop mobilization, naval blockades, military alliances against a specific nation and the like that constitutes a "sufficient" threat. Iraq is not guilty of threatening the territorial integrity and political independence of the U.S and has shown no intention of doing so in the future. Therefore, pre-emption in the present context is not justified.

Alternatives exist. According to CNN, the previous inspection regime, UNSCOM, destroyed more of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction than did the combined forces of Desert Storm. According to Scott Ritter, the former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, the UN destroyed 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The current inspection team also has been instrumental in destroying Iraq's weapons and in interviewing scientists to gather more information about the weapons program. On the contrary, the American and British have only been bombing and killing civilians for more than a decade in so-called enforcement of no fly-zones without any tangible outcome. The fact that inspections can peacefully accomplish what Bush wants through war undermines the necessity of such large-scale military action.

And if it is only to destroy Iraq's WMDs that Bush feels a moral duty to destroy a nation, then are we going to go after other countries like North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel that also have WMDs and pose a threat to their respective regions? What about China and Russia? The duality of the administration's response between Iraq and North Korea raises an important question: Are we going after Iraq because of U.S. security or some other ulterior motives, such as oil?

As far as the removal of Saddam is concerned, I believe the situation is more conducive today to politically bring about a regime change than before. Almost a decade of inspections have destroyed most of Iraq's WMDs, and have greatly curtailed Saddam's ability to administer control over his people. Iraq's military is demoralized, its economy in shambles. The U.S., with the help of the international community, can exert pressure on Iraq for democratic reform, without raining down bombs on the people of Iraq.

History is a witness that world supremacy does not remain with one nation forever, particularly when it abandons justice and commits aggression on other nations. If we set the precedence of pre-emption without a strong moral basis and support from the international community, then we risk undermining the post-WWII world order, giving others license to violate international laws and encourage other nations to use such excuses to attack the weaker nations with which they are at odds. The American government seems too blinded by its world supremacy to give much regard to the international law or the consequences of its actions. Do our consciences not tell us that this act of war may result in the loss of life of hundreds and thousands of innocent men, women, and children who do not necessarily carry ill-will toward America? As civilized people, we need to ask if war would be the just vehicle to bring about a regime change in Iraq.

Hamza Aziz is a Trinity junior. His column appears every third Wednesday.