Reaction to An Opinion

The United States did not get involved in Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons. In fact, the justifications put forth by the President were that Iraq had nuclear and biological weapons that needed to be eliminated. So far, of course, nothing has been found, making this war a mistake according to its stated purpose. But many supporters of the war proudly point to the 'liberation' of Iraq from a tyrannical despot, Saddam Hussein. Although I am not against this end (especially since Iraq was widely known to be a leading human rights offender), there is something to be said for the respect of the sovereignty of a nation. And if the human rights situation in any nation becomes so oppressive and death-dealing that it merits international intervention (overriding that respect for a nation's sovereignty), it should be exactly that: "international." That is, the United Nations must take initiative to intervene on behalf of the rights of all humankind.

Some pro-war advocates have also been pushing the philosophy that the United States must act proactively for its interests and security. [...] In this specific case, however, the justifications seem unwarranted. In the previous paragraph, I grant you that Saddam Hussein is a threat to his own people. But there is yet to be clear evidence that he is a direct threat to the United States. As of this writing, there have been no nuclear or biological weapons found in Iraq, and furthermore, even if there were, Iraq does not have long-range missile capability, and therefore cannot threaten United States land/territory.

To be proactive - specifically militarily proactive - is very dangerous when one cannot present valid, solid justifications. Although the outcome of Gulf War II may appear positive, at least insofar as it will liberate the Iraqi people from a dictator, it presents a dangerous precedent (and a dangerous example) to the rest of the world: that anyone can pre-emptively attack anyone else in an unprovoked situation.

In the case of Gulf War II, this is being seen by the rest of the world as arrogance on the part of the United States government. Please understand how dangerous this is. The United States (with the exception of only Great Britain and Spain) has no support in the world. Again, although the outcome of Gulf War II may appear positive, the long-reaching consequences may severely and negatively impact the United States. To lose the international popular support that had been gained as a result of the September 11, 2001 tragedy is a failure of the current administration. Even more unfortunate is that the consequences will very likely outlive this administration.

In this brief summary, I have not touched on economic or geopolitical reasons for the war; perhaps some other time. To sum up, I cannot say that I am completely anti-war because of the humanitarian aspect of the war. However, to be cold and calculating for a minute, that is beside the point. I say this because this war was not fought for humanitarian reasons. And so, in this context, I do not support this war.