Cliff
Changchun Zou
Dept.
Electrical & Computer Engineering
Univ.
Massachusetts, Amherst
Nov.
4th, 2002
American
People
United
States
Dear
Americans:
After the successful anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan, are we going to
fight another war on Iraq? In almost every statement on foreign policy, Bush
states his belief on his war against Iraq and depicts Saddam Hussein as “an
evil.” A recent poll showed that “nearly seven in 10 supported military
action to force Saddam Hussein from power" (Public Agenda). Before you make
your decision, do you think a war after Iraq is justified by International law
and US law? Do you know the current situation and the background of Iraq and the
Middle East world? Do you think getting rid of Hussein can stop terrorists’
attack on America? Have you thought about the huge capital cost of the war, the
casualties of US soldiers and innocent civilians of Iraq? Have you thought about
the destructive damage to Iraq civilian infrastructure, facilities that millions
of Iraq people rely on to survive? We should think hard by ourselves, according
to our conscience and all information we can get, not according to what Bush
says, to decide whether we should use military force on Iraq. In my opinion, we
should not use military force to go after Iraq, at least not at this time.
First, “a United States invasion of Iraq would constitute a clear
violation of international and US law” (National Network). Article 2 of the UN
Charter forbids “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state” (National Network). There is no
evidence showing that Iraq has any connection with the al-Qaeda terrorists. As
R.C. Longworth pointed out, “Hussein's terrorist credentials are pretty
theoretical.” Therefore, we can’t say Iraq has attacked or hurt any
Americans. In addition, there is no convincible evidence showing that Iraq still
has mass destructive weapons. Even if he has those weapons, “there is no
evidence that he has used them against the United States or plans to do so” (Longworth).
Now President Bush “has declared his intention to wage a preemptive war
against Iraq” (Messineo and Hilliard). “Preemptive war” means we can
attack Iraq in the first place just because “we believe” Iraq is supporting
terrorists and “we believe” Iraq will attack us in the future. Then who can
justify whether what “we believe” is right or wrong? What if some terrorists
attack us first just because they “believe” that US will attack them in the
future?
We can clearly see the injustice of the war by other countries’
responses. Fighting the al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan was a right action
against terrorists. Most countries around the world supported us. But on the
issue of war on Iraq, even though Bush tries his best to persuade other
countries’ leaders, most key countries are still against it (BBC news). For
example, Germany argues that “international efforts to fight terrorism,
rebuild Afghanistan and calm the conflict in the Middle East could be
destabilized by a strike against Iraq”; France “has serious reservations
about an attack on Iraq”; Russia indicates that it might agree to attack Iraq
only “under UN authority if Baghdad blocks the work of weapons inspectors”
(BBC news). Most Middle East Arabian countries are strongly against military
action on Iraq before every possible effort on peace talk has made and before
the United Nation has authorized it.
Second, a war on Iraq will cause great civilian damage to those poor
Iraqi people, especially after the Gulf War on 1991 and the following 11 years
of strict sanctions on Iraq. You can argue that we only aim at Iraq government
and military sites and try to minimize civilian causalities. However, we would
probably still kill thousands of Iraq civilians because of the unavoidable
“collateral damage”. The worse consequence than the civilian casualties is
that “the bombs targeted every type of structure and facility necessary to
support civilian life” (Clark). Thus after the war, most of civilian
facilities will be destroyed and will cause much more deaths of innocent Iraqi
people, which could easily be overlooked by us after we finish the war and put
our mind back onto our own business.
If you don’t believe this, take a look at the consequence of the Gulf
War. After the Gulf War on 1991, “for almost 11 years, Iraq people have been
suffering from the most draconian and prolonged economic sanctions” (Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center). United Nation reports in recent years show
that “One-fourth of Iraqi children under the age of five are malnourished”;
“there has been a 160 percent rise in Iraq's infant mortality rate since 1991.
Iraq has the highest increase in child mortality during the period 1990-1999 of
188 countries surveyed”; “Access to potable water, relative to 1990 levels,
is only 50 percent in urban areas and 33 percent in rural areas”; “Sanctions
have contributed to the death of over one million Iraqis” (Rocky Mountain
Peace and Justice Center). We can argue that our objective is totally different
from the terrorists on 9/11, but the final civilian damage will be the same, or
even much worse than the damage caused by terrorists on 9/11. From the action
consequence, what difference would there be between the terrorists on Sept. 11
and us if we attack Iraq when they have done nothing to us?
Third, military action against Iraq will put huge economic burden on US.
“A study by the US House Budget Committee estimates the total cost of a new
war on Iraq at around $100 billion, if it is executed within a relatively short
period of time;” “In 1991, the Gulf countries contributed 80 percent of the
$80 billion cost of the war to liberate Kuwait. This time the US may have to
foot the bill alone” (Azzam). Now America is in deep trouble of internal
economic regression. Do you want to spend $100 billion dollars to throw Saddam
Hussein away, or to use the money to stimulate our own economy?
Last, war on Iraq will destabilize the balance and peace in Middle East.
Iraq is a multi-religion country with complicated ethnologic conflictions.
Currently, there is no one powerful enough to replace Saddam Hussein to hold
that country together. After the war, Iraq will fall into power vacuum and
chaos. It will further increase the instability in Middle East and probably
cause new local wars there ¾
it’s the reason why most Arabian countries strongly object Bush’s war
against Iraq. In addition, “targeting another Muslim country will portray the
US as an interventionist and expansionist country and cause a new wave of
anti-American and anti-Western sentiments among Arabs and Muslims” (Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center). The original intention of Americans is to
fight terrorists, but the result might be on the contrary ¾
“the war might help Muslim extremists to receive more support and sympathy
from ordinary people in Muslim world” (Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Center).
Nowadays, peace talk and negotiation are the
right ways to solve all international problems. Military force is the last
choice under any situation. We should not use military force to go after Iraq at
this time. America is the most advanced and powerful country in the world. It
should act as the leader in world economy and peace process, not a policeman who
only uses brutal force. As Americans, we should have clear and considerate mind,
not to be blinded by simple enthusiasm against terrorists and patriotism towards
our country.
Sincerely
yours,
Cliff
Changchun Zou
Works
Cited
Public
Agenda. Special Edition:
Terrorism.
<http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/terrorism/terror_pubopinion6.htm>
National
Network to end the war. Why the United States should not Invade Iraq.
<http://www.endthewar.org/frontps/whynotinvade.htm>
R.C.
Longworth. Whack Iraq? Striking Hussein is Ill-Conceived. Chicago
Tribune. Sunday, March 3, 2002.
< http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0303-01.htm>
Carl
Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. George Bush Plans High Crimes and
Misdemeanors: Why We Are Marching on October 26th. International A.N.S.W.E.R.
< http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/092902highcrimes.html>
Rocky
Mountain Peace and Justice Center. Three Major Points.
< http://rmpjc.org/STOP-THE-WAR-AGAINST-IRAQ/majorPoints.html
>
Henry
T. Azzam. War in Iraq: the economic fallout. Daily Star. Oct. 19th,
2002.
< http://www.dailystar.com.lb/business/19_10_02_c.htm>
BBC
News in Depth: Where the world stands on Iraq. Sunday, 3 November, 2002.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2240570.stm >
Ramsey
Clark. The War on Terrorism Continued Next Up: IRAQ.
< http://www.nebraskansforpeace.org/2002/j02/iraq.html
>