Bud Doe
Position Paper
English 1302
Hale
March 1, 1998

Is Military Action Against Iraq Necessary?

        The most critical issue currently debated in the political arena is whether or not to pursue military action against Iraq.  Should diplomatic efforts not bring quick resolution to the current situation and allow inspectors access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq, then world leaders must agree that military action against Iraq is indeed necessary and warranted.  Such an action need not be an all out bombing campaign.  The military action should focus only on certain strategic targets.

        The primary reason for a military strike is to force Iraq to comply with the agreement that ended the Persian Gulf War.  Part of that agreement is designed to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to tour suspicious sites to ensure that Iraq is not building an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq’s president, Saddam Hussein, has repeatedly delayed or, in several cases, flagrantly denied, U. N. representatives access to many of theses sites.  This is blatant disregard for the terms of surrender to which he agreed at the end of the Gulf War.  “Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa ... said emphatically that Iraq’s compliance with U. N. resolutions requiring it to destroy biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons was needed” (Menaker 9A).  Closer to home, President Clinton stated, “‘I simply do not believe it is acceptable to permit Iraq to walk away from its obligations” (Whittle A6).  Military action is warranted to force Iraq to comply.

        In addition, military action is necessary to prevent a repeat of Iraq’s aggression against its neighbors.  Recall that the Gulf War began as a result of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait.  Iraq has been building  its military strength since the Gulf War ended.  What reason, other than aggression, could there be for such a build up?  In addition, any aggressive action in the region would probably be aimed at one or more of our allies, most notably Kuwait, Israel, and/or Saudi Arabia.  Thus, military action also provides the opportunity to protect these countries from an Iraqi attack.  The opportunity to be proactive presents itself.  By taking military action now, and stopping Saddam Hussein before he starts, an escalation to aggression can be averted.

        Another reason to advocate the use of military force against Iraq is to protect our own economic interests.  The free flow of oil at market prices is of primary concern.  In the United States, we depend heavily on imported oil.  From gasoline to plastics to pharmaceuticals, oil and its petroleum derivatives are a vital part of our economy.  Should Iraq escalate tensions in the Mideast Region and become the aggressor in a conflict against Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, oil exports from those countries would become scarce or nonexistent.  This would send oil prices skyrocketing and diminish the supply of oil world wide.  Needless to say, this would have a tremendous negative impact on our economy. 

        The mere fact that reasons exist to support military action against Iraq is not enough.  Are the reasons justified?  We must consider both sides of this issue before any final decision is made.

        First and foremost to consider is the position of those who live in the region.  After all, this action would take place in their own back yards.  Shouldn’t they have some input?  United States Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently visited leaders in the Middle East to try to persuade them to go along with a military attack against Iraq.  While some agree that an attack is warranted, others are still cautious.  They fear that such an attack would evoke a military response from Iraq aimed at them.  They are also concerned that siding with an attack might lead their constituents to believe that they are only going along with the United States and not looking after the best interests of their own people (Menaker 1A).

        While these concerns may be somewhat valid, don’t the leaders in the region realize that military action would be designed to curb the very fears they currently express?  As mentioned, the design of a military strike is to remove Iraq as a threat.  For those concerned about a military response from Iraq, all they have to do is think back to the events that caused the Persian Gulf War in 1991.  Iraq simply went in and took over Kuwait.  For what reason?  What prompted this aggression?  The simple truth is that there was little or no valid reason to attack Kuwait.  This was done, quite simply, at the whim of Saddam Hussein.  A military strike now takes away the ability of this aggressor, removes the threat of such a whimsical attack, and looks out for the interests of the people of the Middle East.

        The leaders in the Middle East must also consider the nature of an attack that may be launched by Iraq.  Such an attack would likely carry the threat of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, or even nuclear warheads.  This type of attack would inflict a tremendous amount of pain and suffering upon those at whom it was aimed; it must therefore be thwarted.

        The concern for human life must also be addressed in order to fully analyze this issue.  Most notably, “Does the current situation warrant putting lives at risk?”  This concern not only applies to military personnel, but also to innocent civilians.  To ensure minimal casualties, a military strike must only target certain of Iraq’s strategic military sites, including sites that may be suspected of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.  The question of putting lives at risk is always difficult to answer; however the threat that exists in the Middle East as a result of Iraq’s position is truly a threat to all who live in the region.  This threat must be removed, and a carefully planned strategic military strike will accomplish this with minimal loss of life.

        There are still those who feel that military action is not appropriate.  They feel that a military strike might evoke a response that could lead to World War III.  Given the previous actions of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, does it not seem more likely that the lack of action could bring about just such a consequence?  Diplomacy should be given ample opportunity to bring about a resolution to this situation.  A deadline for determining the success of diplomacy, however, must be set.  Should that deadline pass without United Nations weapons inspectors being given permission to inspect certain sites, then military action against Iraq must begin.

Works Cited (will appear on separate page)

Menaker, Drusilla.  “Albright Wins Limited Backing in Middle East for Iraq Attack.”  Dallas Morning News  4 Feb. 1998:  1A+.

Whittle, Richard.  “Clinton Says Lack of Russian Support Won’t Stop Iraq Strike.”  Corpus Christi Caller-Times  14 Feb. 1998:  A6.