Some sort of conflict is brewing in the Middle East. What that conflict is still is in question, with Russian president Boris Yeltsin even warning that attacking Iraq could lead to world war. The public overwhelmingly supports some kind of military action; according to a recent poll, three out of four Americans believe that the only way we can solve our problems in the Middle East is by invading Iraq. All the while, the United States seems to have the idea that the only way to do things is the American way. For the past century, since the Spanish-American war, our country has felt that it was our responsibility to “guide” the rest of the world. The urge to guide the rest of the world has threatened to keep the United Nations from remaining united. Russia, a member of the U.N. Security Counsel, wants to see a diplomatic solution to the situation in the Gulf, for example. American Secretary of State Madeline Albright, on the other hand, has spent the last several weeks attempting to gather support for U.S. action, while aircraft, ships and troops steam into Iraq. But despite the preparations and the public’s support, few Americans seem to know what kind of military action we are planning to take, or even what it will accomplish. Madeline Albright has ruled out any massive ground offensive against Iraq. Unfortunately, anything other than that won’t end Saddam’s reign, and he will still have the same animosity towards the United States that he has always had. Simply bombing Iraq may or may not solve the present situation, but it will definitely create more problems in the future. Invading small foreign countries to topple their governments is not unfamiliar to the United States. Countries in South America and Asia have all had “reconstructive” experiences with the United States military. Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Haiti, Cambodia and Nicaragua are just a few of the places in which our government has become involved in conflicts that resulted from its “police of the world” stance. These attempts at meddling with foreign governments haven’t always been successful. Vietnam, for example, lasted for years and took the lives of more than 40,000 Americans. Iraq will probably not be another Vietnam, but that doesn’t mean that it won’t be a costly ordeal for the United States, and not only in terms of the lives lost by American troops. It isn’t setting a good precedent for the United States to use major military action against foreign countries without the support of the United Nations. During the Gulf War, the U.S. had the full support of the U.N. Now, both France and Russia have repeatedly stated that they are looking for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. If Saddam is left in power, he will continue to defy the United States and the United Nation. And yet attempting to bring him down would require a military campaign that the American people may not be too excited to undertake. Until all diplomacy has been failed, it’s dangerous to risk attacking Iraq. Threatening Saddam won’t be successful, and expecting him to completely submit to the demands of the United States after we attack his country a second time is simply wishful thinking. |
