The war is for political gain
Some say Bush is using the war talk to divert from the economic troubles here at home.War is no guarantee of re-election. Ask LBJ. He knew he could not get re-elected in 1968 so he dropped out of the race. Ask Bush 41, he won the war and still lost the presidency in 1992.
This war will require ground forces to play a larger role than in 1991 because we will have to occupy and run Iraq. After a brief air campaign, ground troops will have to go in and if they encounter resistance, there will be many body bags coming home. The 24-hour cable news will be showing the flag draped coffins, the grieving widows and widowers and the orphaned children.
What if the war goes swiftly and the Iraqi army drops their guns, abandon their tanks and raise their arms and wave white flags but the US Army doesn’t find caches of chemical weapons, nerve gas canisters, stashes of anthrax or other deadly biological agents?
The American people will vote Bush out for waging a war for no reason.
If Bush wants to get re-elected in 2004, he should drop the war with Iraq and throw all his energy and political clout on turning the economy around. The polls tell him that Americans are concerned about the economy first and foremost. The only way the war will benefit Bush is if it is swift (probable), the WMDs get found (probable), post-war Iraq is rebuilt into a peaceful nation (doubtful before Nov. 2004) and the American people haven’t forgotten by election day (ask Bush41). Feeling lucky GW?
The war is for oil
Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Some say the USA just wants to control the oil supplies of the world.This is the most repeated refrain of the anti-war crowd.
(1) The USA is far less dependent on Middle Eastern oil compared to Japan or Europe. Instead of spending $50-$100 billion (and that is the conservative estimate) on the war, why not throw that money to the auto-makers to help them build more fuel efficient cars so we don’t have to depend on Middle Eastern oil?
(2) Why not just buy Saddam Hussein’s oil? It will cost less to BUY it from them then to TAKE it from them. And if we do invade, Hussein will probably blow up the oil fields and it will cost us millions just to get the oil pumping again. Do the math! Factor in the costs of war, the cost of rebuilding a functional infrastructure in Iraq and after a few years, you finally you get 1 million barrels of oil flowing at $20 a barrel. Guess how much revenue you get? 20 million dollars/day times 365 days/year = $7.3 billion. And of out that money you got to pay the workers and help the Iraqis get their country back. It could be decades before the USA would "turn a profit" on the damm oil.
(3) If the USA just wants oil, why not invade the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world, Saudi Arabia? Or why go half way around the world, why not turn Venezuela into the 51st State of the Union?
(4) If the war is just about oil then why bother with the hassle of dealing with the UN? The world hates us anyway, why waste time working with the UN? Just go in there and start the bombing tomorrow?
On the merits
If you haven’t gotten where I’m going, I’ll say it outright: whether Bush is right or wrong, he is pursuing the war because he believes it is necessary. So let us debate the issue of Iraq on the merits and not on the above two non-issues.In response to 9/11, Bush could have lobbed a few cruise missiles and bombed a few training camps and called it a day. Instead, he took the bolder and riskier step of taking down the Taliban.
He could have left Iraq alone and concentrated on other matters that could score him more political points. Instead, he believes Hussein poses a danger and has staked his presidency and his standing for history by pursuing an UNPOPULAR war.
Where do we go from here?
From listening to the UNMOVIC reports, it is probably unlikely that Hussein has nuclear bombs and probably won’t have them anytime soon. It is a pretty complicated technology to master. However, if we allow them to keep working on it, they will eventually get a nuclear capability.They have a history of using chemicals in battle and competency to make biologicals. The US should provide as much intelligence as possible to UNMOVIC to "find" them and thus ratchet further the pressure on Hussein. Next, the US should set a deadline. Right now, French, Russia, China and others can say, let’s give the inspectors more time and be very hostile to the US in their public statements. But once a proposal is out on the floor with a date certain, they will have to think harder if they want to veto. And in back channel communications, the USA and UK should make it abundantly clear that if Iraq doesn’t come clean, then military action will be taken with (preferable) or without UN support.
