Comment

By: Kami J., Indiana, U.S.A.
WAR WITH SADDAM

Dear Editor,

I would like to express my support of the views and analysis put forth by S.H.E. and S. Javid.

From my perspective, the Bush administration's determination to remove Saddam from power and to cleanse Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) does not stem from a desire to control the Iraqi oil fields (although its faith is certainly a consideration, and prudently so), but primarily to counter nothing less than a very serious threat to the world order. National security, economic interests, and the promotion of American values are among the most important considerations shaping the US foreign policy. Although these are often times interconnected, but each can be more important in regards to a given situation. Any possible economic gain from controlling the Iraqi oil fields, which will almost certainly be in ruins, is far out weighed by: the actual cost of executing the war (estimates range from $50 to $200 billion), compensating Turkey ($30 to $40 billion), the cost of keeping an undetermined number of American troops in Iraq for an undetermined length of time, endangering American lives, gambling his reelection chances in less than two years, risking a rift with the traditional allies of the US in Europe & Mid East, providing a propaganda tool to the enemies of the world's lone superpower, etc... And all this at a time when the production capacity of oil exporting countries exceed the demand for it. American capitalism is quite capable of finding far more cost effective ways to satisfy its appetite for oil.

Therefore the arguments that all of this is in pursuit of raw economic interests do not hold water. The crucial issue in the post-bipolar world, and the age of international terrorism which the Bush administration is tackling and the Clinton administration shirked from is how to promote world stability, and ensure reliable free trade among increasingly interdependent countries. These are necessary ingredients for prosperous democracies and free enterprise.

One thing that 9/11 demonstrated is that information technology and communication is enabling individuals and groups to inflict as much damage as what would have taken a country to accomplish in not too distant a past. After all, Al Quaeda succeeded in inflicting more human casualties than the Empire of Japan did at Pearl Harbor. Its cancerous cells have spread to over 60 countries. The current administration views this as an "insurgency", and not simply terrorism, and is responding accordingly. A terrorist organization such as this, and armed with WMD endangers the entire world. The US is responding to threats to its national security. By dislodging the Iraqi despot, the US will remove a rogue regime which has been a source of instability in the region, free a nation and hopefully move it towards democracy, disrupt the activities of international terrorist groups, put the regimes in Tehran and Damascus on notice to cease their support of terrorist organizations, and ultimately make it possible for diplomatic efforts to finally bring peace between the Arabs and Israel, which in turn will also remove a major recruitment tool from extremist terrorist groups. Any Iranian who desires a democratically elected, secular, transparent, capable, and accountable system of government for its ancient homeland has nothing to lose from this administration's Iraq policy, and potentially much to gain. Time is not on our side. The US cannot take many more blows such as 9/11, nor can Iran prosper under the clerical regime, and in an unstable Middle East shaped by the Arab-Israeli conflict, an Iraq armed with WMD, and Al Quaeda and Mullah Omar running loose.

Getting rid of Saddam will benefit the Iraqi people, and will have a positive impact for Iran. That is why many nationalistic Iranians support the Bush policy, not because it will be a revenge against the Iraqi military echelon, or Saddam himself, although to me, that would be a welcome bonus.

Finally, I like to express my profound disappointment with Chirac's grandstanding, and Schroeder's teetering (collectively referred to as the "Axis of Weasel" in a recent New York Post article), who have forgotten their national obligations toward the US. It has been clearly demonstrated that Saddam responds to force and not diplomacy. A united front by the West to enforce the 17 UN resolutions over the last 12 years, which Saddam had defied would have born fruit much sooner, and would have reduced the risk to civilians. We know that the Iraqi Kurds, and Iraqi Shiites both of which have been ruthlessly repressed, are opposed to Saddam. These two groups combined make up 79% of the population (17% Kurd, and 62% Shiite, and Arab Sunnis are only 18%). If the majority of Iraqis are opposed to Saddam, on whose side are Chirac and Schroeder! I suppose they rather believe the recent Iraqi election results which gave Saddam 100% of the votes, beating the customary 99.9% of the popular vote.

Upon the fall of Saddam, there will be celebrations in much of Iraq. And as is said, many of those others who will burn the US flag in Arab and Pakistani streets, and chant "Yankee Go Home", given a chance would finish by saying, "And Take Us With You".

The above comment is a reader's opinion, and therefore, may or may not reflect that of our organization, Khorsheed. Posting of this particular comment in this section is due to inadequate space in our Readers Comment database.