A defense of the strike against Iraq
Ben Haney, Beth Monteleone and Jacque Wilson
sophomores
We would like to establish the purpose of "Operation Persian Gulf War II," hereinafter correctly called Operation Iraqi Freedom. One of the most common protests to the war is "No Blood for Oil," and it seems that a letter by Jessica Needles on March 21 echoes this sentiment. While it is easy to fall into this trap, this war is actually being waged for the purpose of freeing a people from a self-serving dictator who has continually ignored U.N. resolutions and other forms of diplomacy for over twelve years. By disregarding world opinion and by keeping and pursuing weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has become a legitimate threat to the United States and to the world.
Ms. Needles claims that "the Bush administration has destroyed U.S. foreign relations by ignoring our allies in the United Nations." We find this claim to be unfounded since the U.S. is acting with a coalition more then 40 members strong. It was President Bush who initially secured a U.N. resolution giving Iraq a last chance to comply with weapons inspectors. As it became clear that Iraq was deceiving the U.N. and all means of diplomacy had failed, force was the only viable option.
The U.S. is completely within its rights as a sovereign nation to defend itself from outside threats. While Ms. Needles seems to think that there is no "meaningful" reason to go to war, we believe that the protection of our nation and the liberation of an oppressed people are certainly meaningful enough. U.S. intelligence has shown that not only does Iraq possess both chemical and biological weapons; it also has attempted to acquire the components to produce nuclear warheads. Additionally, it is known that Saddam has used such weapons on his own people in the past and it is therefore feasible to assume that he could use them on the rest of the world or sell them to terrorist organizations.
While Ms. Needles believes that the Iraqis have no desire to be liberated, it is our understanding that this is not the case. Clearly one can not believe state-sponsored rallies to gauge Iraqi public opinion regarding Saddam. In light of recent reports that liberated Iraqis are thanking U.S. troops, it seems that a majority is in favor of being free. Under an oppressive regime such as Saddam's, it is impossible to discern the desires of the people and it is for this reason that freedom is imperative.
In regards to Ms. Needles's position that the U.S. is attacking Iraq for its oil, it is helpful to understand the foreign ties of the second-most oil rich nation in the world. While most assume that Iraq is one of the largest suppliers of oil to the U.S., only 8.5 percent of all U.S. crude oil imports actually come from Iraq, as reported by the Department of Energy.
According to globalpolicy.org, France is the No. 1 European trading partner with Iraq under the U.N. oil for food program. In fact, the French oil company TotalFinaElf owns the rights to 25 percent of all Iraqi oil fields. These rights are believed to be worth in excess of $400 billion. In addition, Russia is the world's No. 1 trading partner with Iraq. Iraq owes Russia more than $8 billion in debts from the Soviet era and has made deals with the Russian oil company Lukoil to develop its West Qurna and other lucrative oil fields. Both nations realize that these contracts may not be honored by the new Iraqi government and therefore are hesitant to support a regime change.
The U.S. has repeatedly stated that it will not claim Iraqi oil as its own but will instead use it for reconstruction costs. The oil in Iraq is to be owned by the Iraqi citizens and will not be used by the U.S. to pay for our war debts. These debts, estimated at between $80 to 100 billion are being accounted for in the current budget debate in congress. As recently as Friday, the Senate voted to trim $100 billion in tax cuts to President Bush's "friends" to help pay for the war. In our minds, the cost of war is not an issue. We don't believe that a price tag can be placed on freedom and security.
We don't believe that normally expressing one's first amendment rights is unpatriotic. However, we believe that at times like these when debate has ceased and the Congress has passed a resolution to go to war, protests are in fact unpatriotic. We find it hard to believe that one can support the troops without supporting the cause for which they are giving their lives. These troops deserve our full support and nothing less.
In closing, please remember that we are merely "a misguided" bunch willing to blindly place our trust in our President.
Ben Haney, Beth Monteleone
and Jacque Wilson
sophomores
Washington, D.C.
March 23
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, March 24, 2003
