The United States of America has had a rather fortunate history, something that has been a major contributor to its success in becoming one of the most powerful countries in the world. However, this position helps to draw the people of America and of other nations in to criticize America in its dealings in the international community. Since America is one of the leading economic, political, and militarily powers, some people think that it should take a larger role in world politics, whereas others disagree on America using its power to intervene in other countries’ affairs. This is the charge of being a leader in the world today, one that has great political complexity with the potential to stabilize the world or to bring great problems upon it. As of late, many criticisms have been directed at the United States’ policy when concerning the other countries of the world. A particularly hot topic has been on the subject of Iraq, especially now, with President Bush announcing his new policy on preemptive strikes against nations that threaten the US. This shows that America is willing to accept the responsibility of taking a more adamant position of power in the world, one that will test the will and morals of Americans, and citizens of the world. However, is taking such an aggressive stance beneficial to America in the future? I believe that America can still adopt the same global position and accomplish the same objectives without the first strike initiative, by using all its resources and political power, but to do this, we as Americans need to become more politically aware and active.
Many different viewpoints have been expressed on how we might resolve the issue concerning Saddam and Iraq. However, in many cases, people are diehard supporters of their method of resolution, not allowing room for other arguments that may hold valid points. Many of the proposed solutions have offered up numerous valid points on how America should progress through this dilemma. However, many of these same plans have very apparent flaws in them, flaws that are exploited by their opponents to shift the opinions of the general public and those in political power to adopt their route. The route to the best solution has not yet made itself apparent in one single argument because this is an issue of massive complexity. However, steps could be taken to create an ‘ideal’ optimal plan. This would incorporate ideas from methods that have already been suggested, borrowing the good and cutting out the bad, to make a plan that has a high chance of success in obtaining America’s goals while satisfying as many critics as possible. The current situation America is facing with Iraq perfectly exemplifies my argument. Here, America is presented with a problem and there are many ways to deal with it.
From my research, I found many different viewpoints on how America should cope with the current situation and, through a survey, how students at Notre Dame feel about it. Three basic ideas were seemingly consistent throughout many of the opinions I found during my research. These ideas were that America should handle its current dilemma by adopting an aggressive policy, a cautious position, or a passive stance.
There are many that believe America should adopt an aggressive policy. Some of the more radical of these people see the "good ‘ole USA as a savior of democracy;" the beacon of light that the rest of the world should reference when finding their way through the dark tunnels of government, where the paths can lead to the righteous destination of democratic society, or the dead end of (insert government here).
Recently, President Bush made a declaration that gives America pre-emptive first strike power against countries America deems to be "threatening." This is a major concern for the rest of the world, including both our allies and enemies. In the survey I performed, 75% of the students surveyed saw Iraq as "A very current dangerous threat" as opposed to "An idle threat." If it is a threat, shouldn’t America do something about it, given its position of power, or would that be taking it too far?
The fact that America has the right to defend itself is usually not disputed. It is our right to retaliate against aggressors who harm our country and/or its citizens. President Bush’s new policy simply extends the ability for America to protect itself from parties that are known to be dangerous or are potentially dangerous to us or our allies in the international community.
Bush has blatantly stated that America will remove Saddam from power by itself if needed. Numerous people cheered this statement, and were ready to go to war right away without the rest of the world ‘interfering.’ When asked "what do you think should be done by America about Iraq, considering it’s history of human rights violations and its being a ‘threatening’ nation?" in the survey, 66% of students felt that America should "keep an eye on Iraq, and take action if we feel it is justified." A quarter of those surveyed thought we should "keep an eye on Iraq, but only take action out of defense." The remaining 8% felt that continued negotiation was the best way to handle the situation. No one picked the hands off approach of "leave Iraq alone," or the aggressive approach of "invade to prevent any further atrocities from occurring." This shows that these students definitely feel Iraq is an issue and it needs to be dealt with, but no one wants to go all out and level the country. If citizens believe this way, why is a first strike policy necessary? People still see Iraq as a threat either way.
There are many arguments on why America should do everything it possibly can to get Saddam out of power as soon as possible. One of the greatest reasons people feel this way is the threat he poses to the international community. What makes the situation difficult is that we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, but we don’t know exactly what they are, and when/if he will strike. This coupled with his history of being aggressive and not afraid to show his power, make it a very tense situation. Kathleen Bailey, a writer for "Comparative Strategy," claims in her paper that "Iraq’s Asymmetric Threat to the United States and U.S. Allies" that "Iraq poses an extremely serious threat to the United States and to and to U.S. allies not only because of its continued possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the increased likelihood that it will use such weapons in any future military conflict." (Bailey)
She concludes her lengthy explanation with:
"Iraq has the ability to deliver chemical and biological agents, as well as radiological materials, via numerous vehicles, including ballistic and cruise missiles. It may also have a limited amount of nuclear weapons."… "To deter Iraq’s (or any other nation’s) potential to from using WMD, the United States must clearly communicate both its will and capability to respond with overwhelming force, including nuclear weapons. This deterrent policy must be stated firmly, and should be based on longstanding U.S. policies regarding proportional response." (Bailey)
With such a threat existing in the world, something must be done about it, and America is just the country to do it. We would be doing everybody a favor as well as minimizing the risk of Saddam striking on his own terms. If the rest of the world is going to stand dormant, hoping Saddam will play nice, and not do anything about it, then America must step up and end his tyranny now. However, is this the absolute best way to solve the problem? Many opponents take the stance that America should not interfere at all and that Bush’s plan won’t help our situation in the long run. These are sound points, but the choice needs to be made, where in one hand rests the preservation of the balance of power in the world, and the other holds the opportunity to eliminate Saddam before he makes a strike.
As much as many people think Saddam must be stopped, there are others who feel that too aggressive a policy would be unwise, especially if America were to ‘go it alone.’ Other critics see a much more cautious alternative, which still removes Saddam as a threat and keeps other nations of the world in on the decision. America should be cautious when dealing with other world powers, enemies and allies alike. These critics believe that minimizing America’s role in the conflict is the best way to handle the situation, at the same time lessening the destruction while keeping other nations involved in the decision making process.
Nile Gardiner sees the potential that Iraq may exist for only a short time longer. The United States is such a country that can make other nations shiver with nervousness when the words "war" or "invasion" and the like are directed at them. However, there is an added bonus that throws in our established ally, the not-too-shabby-itself Great Britain, onto our side of the playing field. Add these two powers, plus any other UN nations that may join Bush and his conquest for international peace, and you have a powerful force that most likely cannot be stopped. Gardiner states his beliefs and offers up some convincing evidence.
"Though world leaders appear deeply divided over the issue, there are clear signs that the tide is turning against Baghdad and in favor of the Bush Administration's policy. In recent days, for example, Saudi Arabia has stated that it may make its bases available for an allied military offensive. Italy and Spain have pledged their full support. France has stepped back from a stance of unequivocal opposition to the use of military force. And Russia and China have indicated that they may be willing to soften their opposition to war." (Gardine)
Gardiner follows this strong evidence of support with a list of other countries that are likely to take action to end the dictatorship in Iraq if Saddam once again goes back on his word to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country.
To make an aggressive move, it would be wise to first consult the rest of the world on their positions on the issue. Countries agreeing to help America on its stand is more than a display of nations coming together to achieve a common goal, but an acknowledgement that each country that joins our fight also agrees our stance when it comes to other countries that are classified at "threatening." This sign of support can be a direct way of saying that those countries accept America’s new policy.
With so much support seemingly coming forth from the other countries of the world, America must be right in its stance or America has intimidated them into joining. However, a second viewpoint needs to be addressed, the one that has exactly the opposite sentiments toward this issue. Many citizens of America and other nations believe that America’s "first-strike" policy is a very unhealthy move to make. However, America still needs to proactively do something about the issue, but getting other nations to follow would be much easier than ‘going it alone.’
America may well be the leader of the free world, waving its torch for others to follow. However, is this "ideal" nation using its light to guide other countries to the ways of democracy, or blinding developing nations into submission? Even more of a concern is that America may be not only unnecessarily pressuring other nations to conform to a like government, but also forcing them to adopt American beliefs and to support its causes. Many people believe that America is overstepping its bounds.
The evidence submitted by Gardiner cannot be refuted; America has a line of countries willing to help us remove Saddam from power. Even so, this support does not mean that we are justified in our actions, and that the rest of the world necessarily accepts and agrees with Bush’s new policy. The fact is they could be joining for a number of different reasons. Nations that voiced their support may approve of America’s new world policy, or they may simply agree that Saddam is a threat and should be dealt with. The way America interprets this information can have drastic impacts on how it will handle possible threats in the future.
Either way, this just one more step towards America telling other countries what to do. The other countries may have their say in this matter, but once they have committed, it will make it easier for them to feel obligated to stand by America’s side in its future campaigns, some that may not be as "righteous" as this stand.
Robert Kaplan is a writer in the Atlantic Monthly. He believes that America would use Iraq as a staging ground to launch further attacks, namely, against a close neighbor, Iran. This is the power that America yields while brandishing its new weapon of preemptive strikes. If this may be the case, other countries may find themselves taking part in some activities that they would rather not be associated with. Many people feel that striking at Iraq will only cause more problems. Assertions are not only made that America will strike once against Iraq, and then move onto other countries that are not friendly (i.e. "threatening") to the United States, but claims are made that there is no definite proof showing Saddam will ever make his move. This not only tells America to stand down, but that any follow through on Bush’s new policy could lead to drastic consequences in world politics in the future.
It is definitely in the best interest of America and its citizens to avoid war. With the new policy, it appears that America is looking for war, which is not the type of image that America wants to be presenting. When asked in the survey on their thoughts about the first strike policy, they had much to say. Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed felt that "Bush’s policy that gives America First Strike ability is" "a danger to us and the rest of the world. Eight percent felt that the policy was "no big deal," and the remaining 25% thought that the policy was "perfectly fine." The majority of those surveyed agree with Robert Kaplan that "If this first strike policy was indeed employed," it would "Increase the chance of the policy being employed in the future." Seventy-five percent of those surveyed felt this way, where as 16% said it would actually decrease the chances, and 8% thought it would neither increase nor decrease the chances of another first strike occurring. The final two questions show that the first strike policy has some major opponents. Another 75% of those surveyed thought that "If the first strike policy was indeed employed on Iraq, and then the action was taken against another ‘threatening’ country, concerning the balance of world power," that it would have a bad impact. Sixty-six percent disagree with the first strike policy and what it entails. It seems that America may be showing tendencies to be a place where a majority disagrees with the legislation of those in power.
This is not the type of "free" nation people like to associate themselves with. Since a strike against Iraq by America would be the first step in the possibility of this more of the like happening, many people oppose a war on these grounds. Looking for war and defending against aggressors are two very different things.
A counter argument that quickly pops up to this possible solution of America proceeding with world support is the same as the one above. Just because other powerful nations have committed themselves to the movement, still doesn’t justify any action they may take. The UN moving against a single nation could irreparably damage the UN’s image and cast doubt on its effectiveness and, possibly, its existence. Here is time to weigh the pros and cons of such an alliance including all possible repercussions that may result in any action such a group could make. However, is such conflict the only way to settle this situation? There are other suggested plans out on the table.
Anna Somers Cocks and Frances Stonor Saunders offer up yet another possibility on how to deal with Iraq. These two authors show that culture can be changed from the inside out.
"Who would have expected to see Lichtensteins on display in Iran today? Or a Jewish-American lecturing on the latest in feminist art at Tehran's Museum of Contemporary Art? And an exhibition of funky British photography touring the country, courtesy of the British Council and specifically requested by the Iranians? All this has happened this year." (Cocks and Saunders) These things would not have been possible in previous years. Even when a country is pressed tightly under the thumb of a dictator, progress toward modern culture still may have a chance to grow. Things like this could be concentrated on instead of war to solve the problem.
"…70 per cent of the population is under 30; there are more female graduates than male; and social change looks inevitable. The most helpful thing the US could do at this point would be to lift the sanctions, which would reward Khatami's flexible and tolerant policies by boosting the economy and would strengthen his following in the country, making the revolution that some Americans are blithely foretelling for Iran less likely." (Cocks and Saunders)
Could Iraq be changed slowly from the inside by cultural influences? This is certainly a possibility after looking at what has been accomplished in Iran. This would be better than risking the lives of the world’s men and women in a gruesome war. Alternative strategies could be used to modernize the Iraqi culture, in which case terrorism would be hard pressed to continue operating in the area.
This method would be a pacifist’s dream. A solution that didn’t involve war or killing, but more subtle an ‘attack.’ Along with the benefits that would spare the rest of the world their men’s and women’s lives, the condition of Iraq would also be (ideally) improved, shutting the terrorists down and possibly resulting in Saddam being overthrown by his own people. That would be fantastic.
Such a great way to solve the problem has to be loaded with complications and wishful thinking. Opposition of this idea is harsh, pointing out that such a method would never work in Iraq, it being a much different country than Iran. They also say that it would take too long for any change to be instated, giving Saddam time to combat it, or even attack. These claims are very serious, and show that such a method would take risks that would likely be deemed unacceptable by the general American public. However, if this idea were to be melded into another, bigger idea, it could have drastic effects on the overall picture…
This entire Saddam ordeal is definitely a threat to national and world security, but what should be done about it? There are many reasons for America to take its stand and remove Saddam from power, but there are others that push for America to refrain from doing so. Having Saddam out of the picture is (in my opinion) a good thing, but the question has been asked "why should America stop there?" If it is for the common good and in the world’s best interest, why not take out Iran or North Korea? An immeasurable amount of "what if" and "why" questions can be raised from this current dilemma, which is the same for many other political decisions in the past.
In any case, America should make the best decision possible, especially with the rest of the world watching our every move. So that is where the problem once again arises. What is the best plan of action that can be taken? That should be America’s goal. However, no matter what happens, America will not make the right choice that will satisfy all critics. That is simply not possible, and the American public must come to realize this.
If America strikes, it may lead to more aggressive attacks on other countries, attacks that the rest of the world that might not feel as accommodatingly towards. This is also in direct conflict with the arguments that America has no jurisdiction over other countries and should not interfere. This option also runs the risk of America getting bogged down into a war that may not be as easy to carryout as previously thought. Since weapons inspectors have never successfully reviewed Iraq’s weapons, Saddam might have some unexpected tricks up his sleeve.
Strobe Talbott feels that a strike by America could lead to even more destabilizing effects.
"The U.S. administration's success after September 11 in crushing the Taliban stoked the president's confidence in the ability of the American armed forces, acting largely on their own, to bring down enemy regimes. In planning and executing the campaign in Afghanistan, the administration gave NATO short shrift. Many in Canada and Europe, and some in the United States, worry that if the administration is similarly dismissive of NATO when push comes to shove in Iraq, the alliance might never recover, since NATO must be taken seriously by its strongest member if it is to be taken seriously by anyone." (Talbott)
Bottom line: America must pay special attention to its actions.
America strikes; America is overstepping its bounds, and setting the precedent for more of the like. America sits; everything America has been working for has now been discredited and if Saddam makes a move, then America takes the blame. This proves that when looking for a "right" solution, there is no clear-cut answer. To make the best of the situation, critics must come together and work toward the optimal plan and policy for our defense, one that also takes into concern the wellbeing of the rest of the world. By taking the good things from all the different ideas, a better plan could be formed.
I shall give an example plan, one that shows how a combination of different ideas can work together. These are simply my personal ideas, and the offered plan is far from flawless. However, it is a step to looking beyond the boundaries of any one option, and expanding upon it. In my beliefs, Iraq and Saddam are dangerous, and America should make sure Iraq is eliminated as a threat, and should do this by taking the lead in world politics by rallying other nations to our cause. This will put America in a good position to take Saddam out of power, while not going it alone. This will also keep other nations from feeling alienated and powerless in America’s wake. Keeping our allies is just as important as extinguishing the threat posed by Iraq.
By letting other nations have their say in what to do, this lessens the risk of America furthering any deterioration of the UN as well. However, brute force and giant alliances can solve problems, but there are still more efficient methods to deal with this problem. As in Afghanistan, America learned that keeping the peace in an unstable country offered up more troubles than was expected. American troops are still stationed in Afghanistan, but their role of peacekeeping has suddenly turned into one of them acting as local police. In her essay posted in "Foreign Affairs," Rachel Bronson made several valid points showing how soldiers have become cops.
"It is becoming evident that the US military is not very well suited to the task of establishing security in precarious political environments. The situation in Afghanistan has revealed a pattern that the US seems doomed to repeat elsewhere: the mismatch between resources and requirements will ensure that the country continues to use its forces inefficiently. It is therefore time to rethink the roles and missions of the US military and related civilian organizations. Appropriate restructuring will not begin until Washington develops a greater appreciation for the fact that intervention entails not simply war-fighting but a continuum of force ranging from conventional warfare to local law enforcement."…" Unless such measures are taken and serious attention is given to the shortcomings in America's approach to international security, the country will eventually bog down, both diplomatically and militarily, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other unexpected places." (Bronson)
America has ignored some important factors in rebuilding a country. They may change the political structure and those who are in power, but if they ever want to impose serious, lasting change, they will have to dig much deeper into the culture of the people.
The third approach of causing internal change through cultural influences is more important than it is sometimes given recognition. Culture is related to everything in a way of life, and doesn’t end just at political culture, but extends into the areas of religion, everyday practices, and economics. The last one, economics, could very well play a key role in stabilizing a nation. Unstable countries are prone to more problems that other developed nations can deal with easier. When a country has a stable economic foundation, its citizens are usually satisfied. Given the United States as a generalized example.
When the economy is going well, everybody is doing well. When the economy is doing badly, people lose jobs, get laid off, and resources are tighter. It’s not saying that when the economy is well off, the rest of the country is doing great as well, but it is doing much better than if the economy is failing. This is not to say that money can solve the entire world’s problems, but it can help in stabilizing a country.
When a country is stable, people like to keep it that way. There are many different things that can destabilize a country. War is one of them. Terrorism is another. When a country becomes more economically developed and has established a link to the rest of the world, the citizens will do anything to keep progressing forward. Terrorist activity will have a more difficult time operating in a stable country than one where the threat of war and violence is a part of everyday life.
There is more to simply defeating Saddam and installing a new government will not solve the problems alone, but any progress towards cultural change may need to be taken through a joint military campaign. Given Iraq also has great prospects in the economic market with its oil supply throws another spin on the situation. However, from here on, it becomes extremely politically complicated, and I don’t want to go that far. This is just merely an example of taking aspects of different plans to try and make a better one.
Such a plan could possibly involve aspects of America taking the lead against Saddam with the world helping, but would also include certain cultural perspectives that will make the overall effect greater and easier to sustain later. If the attention given to it is well thought out and proactive, then the situation will have the best outcome.
The sheer complexity of this current issue is well outside of the solutions muttered by citizens of America, who I have heard say "Just nuke them and get it over with," or "We shouldn’t even be interfering with other countries." We have moved beyond that. However, the way in which we use our power will determine the political climate for years to come. I do not believe that the first strike policy is a good idea, and neither do many of the people who were surveyed. As shown in with the options we have concerning Iraq, we could do the same quality of problem solving without such a heavy-handed policy, while still reserving the right to act in such a manner.
With America having progressed to this stage of power in its development, it has taken on many responsibilities. Having such a plethora of options is can actually be constructive in finding a solution for this problem, but such a variety of ideas can only come about when American citizens think for themselves instead of being spoon fed other people’s ideals. Also, all the above actions that were examined in the argument could very well been employed with effect without the first strike policy even existing. It is simply a dangerous, unnecessary risk. People who are ignorant to this should take the time to reflect on the real issues at stake.
American’s should stop and think twice about blindly criticizing the government, especially when the government’s main responsibility is to protect us and act in our best interests, for our support will help America in its further development. We must work to keep informed so we can make the best decisions that will help the people of America, and ideally, the citizens of the world. This may be accomplished by questioning the authority and motives of America, but it will only be constructive and helpful if informed citizens are the ones to do it.
