As tensions grow between the Unites States and Iraq, people are debating the reasons why. Some are wondering if the Bush administration has lost focus on the war on terrorism and Osama bin Laden.
Others see the possible attack on Iraq as necessary to combat the threat of terrorism.
In a speech Monday, Al Gore spoke against an immediate strike on Iraq urging the Bush administration to keep its focus on Osama bin Laden while building international support to overthrow Saddam Hussein later.
Robert Blanton, assistant professor of political science/international affairs at the University of Memphis, said he is weary about the reasons the Bush administration is pushing for war with Iraq.
“What bothers me is that we seem to be rushing this,” Blanton said. “All other options are being closed when there is a whole lot more to address.”
Blanton said he worries this may still be the aftermath of Sept. 11.
He said what makes this war different from others is that this is a preemptive war.
“We are striking out against a potential threat rather than responding to an actual attack,” Blanton said. “This contradicts centuries of international law surrounding conduct of war.”
Blanton added there is no smoking gun and it does not sound like Hussein has done anything different (now from what he did before). He also said that Bush has not linked Hussein to the attack.
Blanton said the Bush administration should put more effort into the war on terrorism and a war with Iraq may actually hurt that effort.
“We’re putting little resources in Afghanistan which raises questions about whether or not we have the drive to stick it out with long term occupation in Iraq,” Blanton said.
Kenneth Holland, professor of political science at the U of M, offers a different view. Holland said President Bush is applying lessons from Vietnam in realizing the need for a solid objective in a war. He added that America is trying to achieve the same result in Iraq as in Afghanistan - overthrowing the government, destroying the enemy and changing the regime.
“America would have a hard time supporting a war against an abstract enemy,” Holland said. “By declaring war against Iraq, you make the enemy concrete.”
The potential war with Iraq is not a central part of the war on terrorism; it is a peripheral part, according to Holland.
Holland said Bush sees the future threat Iraq poses as a possible potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Holland explained that this conflict with Iraq is essentially unfinished business from the first Bush administration.
Holland said Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as defense secretary under George Bush Sr., wants to finish what was started in 1991.
Holland explained the Bush administration has not forgotten Operation Enduring Freedom. It is now a covert operation instead of an overt military occupation.
According to Holland, the United States has already changed the regime in Afghanistan and now it is in the stage of nation building. Nation building does not make headlines, Holland said.
He added the hunt for bin Laden continues, but it is a covert operation by the CIA with no news to report.
Holland said it is necessary to keep in mind that the United States has been involved in regime changes through covert operations for many years.
“If we attack now and change the regime, Iraq wouldn’t be able to support terrorism,” Holland said. “If we eliminate the future threat—that’s one less country Osama can take refuge in, one less country he can get money from, one less country he can gain intelligence from and train terrorists in.”
Holland reiterated there are other countries besides Iraq that pose potential threats and that the United States will move onto these next.
