On Sept. 19, 2002 President Bush sent a resolution to Congress requesting the authorization to “use all means, including force, to…defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.” If the resolution is passed, America will be faced with the most aggressive and preemptive defense policy since the Reagan era.
So, does this mean we’re going to war with Iraq? “If you want to keep the peace, you’ve got to have the authorization to use force,” was Bush’s paradoxical quote to reporters in the oval office. Having made his hardest push yet for a swift, pre-emptive move against Iraq, Bush is seeking to muster support from Congress and the United Nations in his campaign against Saddam Hussein.
Fairfield Politics Professor John Orman raised the interesting and somewhat alarming fact that Bush may be personalizing the Iraqi situation because of the history his father, former president George Bush, had with Hussein.
“If Bob Dole were president I don’t think we’d be doing this, we’d be going after Al Qaeda.” Orman said we should finish the Al Qaeda job first and avoid letting the war become a personal vendetta for the president.
Bush has accused Iraq of, among other things, continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological weapons. While Iraq’s foreign minister to the United Nations, Naji Sabri, says that Hussein denies these accusations, Bush dismissed his statements as “the same old song and dance we’ve heard for 11 years.”
Congress so far is backing Bush, although they do admit that they expect to see some changes in the wording of the resolution, especially concerning restoring peace in the region. Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle stated that “we are interested and determined to keep the focus on Iraq.”
Emily McAdam, ’05, asserts that “as long as Congress backs it,” she would be in favor of a strike against Iraq. “If most of Congress agrees with the President then it is less risky. If just the president wanted to bomb Iraq I’d be wary.”
Conversely, Garrick Brown, ’04, insists that “we would alienate ourselves from other nations if we bombed Iraq. We would make another generation look poorly on us while running the risk of increasing the circle of terrorism.” Chris Sullivan, ’04, put it in simple terms when he said that he is “not a fan of bombing.”
Bush is trying to work well with our allies and The United Nations to rally support for our measures against Iraq. Democratic Senator Carl Levin says that “going it alone has some very significant risks…I’d like the focus of a resolution to be on urging the U.N. to take action.”
Indeed mustering international support for the policy against Iraq has proved challenging. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s justice Minister, Herta Däubler-Gmelin, recently compared Bush’s actions against Iraq to those of Hitler.
Orman does not go as far as making a Hitler analogy, but he does admit to being in the minority when it comes to support or dissent of the president’s policy. Orman insisted that “as Americans we cannot adopt a policy of preemptive strikes.”
He goes on to explain that the Bush’s objectives must be “first, to get Osama, second, to make sure Al Qaeda is not a threat anymore, and lastly, to go after nations who harbor Al Qaeda.” Clearly, these objectives are not addressed when Iraq is brought into the picture.
Regardless of support for the president, most students and faculty agree that whatever the president does with Iraq, the effect here will be minimal.
Dr. Orman doubts that we’ll see very much of the war and that the chances of college students being drafted is small. Garrick Brown mentioned that “being at Fairfield is a neutral thing,” and that the effect on us will be small besides some emotional stress.
Leave a Reply