As of Wednesday, it appears a potential U.S. strike on Iraq has been averted, and U.N. inspections of government facilities have been OK’d by Saddam Hussein. But how much can we trust him? More likely this is a case of, OK, we’ve stalled you blue helmets long enough to move the illegal weapons out of the places you know about, you can check them now.

In light of Hussein’s nature, should we bomb a few military targets anyway, just to teach him a lesson? A number of U.S. leaders would certainly agree. Hussein has used not-so-subtle discriminatory tactics against Kurdish Iraqis, has threatened surrounding nations, and might posses biological and chemical weapons. U.S. intervention has always quelled hostile foreign situations in the past, right?

With the possible exception of World War II, every time America has become forcefully involved in foreign affairs, the result has been disastrous. After defeating Germany in World War I, allied leaders took it upon themselves to punish Germany for its involvement in the war, demanding millions in reparations and restricting its military. It is no wonder the impoverished and disgraced nation turned to Adolf Hitler 15 years later.

Advertisement

While the Gulf War was justified by the idea of stopping Hussein just as Hitler should have been stopped at Munich, politicians now talk of punishing Iraq for not complying with their every demand, just as was done to Germany following World War I.

Embargoes have become a popular foreign-relations tool following Vietnam. However, the Bosnian arms embargo of the early 1990s rendered the Muslims helpless against the well-supplied Serbs, who had ways around the United Nation’s control. The embargo imposed on Iraq has starved 1.2 million civilians to death so far, yet politicians stand by the use of embargoes in the interest of peace.

When we look at recent history, it is immediately apparent embargoes never accomplish what they intend. Therefore, should we bomb Iraq instead?

Hypothetically, we would bomb only military sites. We have ordinance capable of incinerating any chemical agents before they could be blown into the countryside and, says the Defense Department, our weapons are more accurate now than those used six years ago. There would be minimal loss of civilian life, it says.

It frightens me how otherwise sensible people can use such phrases with a straight face. Additionally, we have no proof the weapons we are out to destroy even exist. We would be shooting at phantoms, just like in the Gulf of Tonkin the preamble to America’s involvement in Vietnam.

Saddam Hussein is a despicable individual, yes, but starving and blowing up the countryside has not and will not change this. It is not our place to starve and murder in the name of peace and humanity. Many Iraqis despise Hussein as much as we do, and if we were not starving them, perhaps he would have been overthrown.

One thing is certain. If we stop interfering with other nations, we would have less to fear of what weapons they might have.

Advertisement*