Ayaz Amir, the author of an editorial titled ‘The first sin: conformity,” featured in last week’s edition of The Lawrentian, argues against the U.S. invading Iraq, stating that “the case for war is full of holes.” Amir seems to imply that there is a push for everyone to think the same way on political matters, and that this push is what drives support for military action against Iraq.
Frankly, I don’t follow his argument. However, the U.S. has a rock-solid case for overthrowing the dictatorship in Iraq.
The fact that Iraq has been uncooperative with UN Security Council resolutions is irrelevant to the case for military action against Iraq.
Weapons inspections are a sham based on the implicit belief that the world should act as a baby-sitter to Iraq, forcefully taking away any toys (weapons of mass destruction) of which we don’t approve.
Included on our list of duties is to keep Iraq out of the cookie jar (Kuwait), and ensure that it plays nice with its friends (enforce no-fly zones).
These policies have been enforced through a willingness to evade the truth: the government of Iraq sponsors terrorism and is therefore a threat to the security of America.
This fact is the necessary and sufficient justification for overthrowing the government of Iraq. Any other benefit to the U.S. or the world or Iraqi citizens that results from our overthrowing Iraq is irrelevant, and politicians or pundits who point to these benefits as a justification for (or opposition to) military action do a great disservice to America.