Don't invade Iraq

THE UNITED STATES is moving closer and closer to invading Iraq – a unilateral attack on a sovereign nation that would be without precedent in modern U.S. history – and there's hardly a word of dissent in the body politic or the mainstream media.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing raised few serious questions about the Bush administration's open, stated plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power, by military force if necessary. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), the chair of that committee, told TV reporters that the president "has a tough decision to make" and only urged that Bush first consult Congress. A few U.S. newspapers have raised technical questions about the timing of the attack and have cited the constitutional need for congressional approval. But almost nobody stateside is saying what needs to be said: that invading Iraq is a terrible idea, and the United States government shouldn't even be discussing it.

For starters, as columnist Hugo Young wrote Aug. 1 in the U.K. Guardian, "Each of the main western wars of the last 20 years, however controversial, was perceivable as a response to manifest aggression.... Each had a measure of international approval. A war to unseat Saddam Hussein would proceed on a different basis, encompassed in the seductive word 'pre-emptive.' "

The United States would be invading Iraq – this time with virtually no international support – simply because we fear Hussein might do something truly awful in the relatively near future. If the U.S. policy is to start "overthrowing truly nasty regimes," Joan Smith notes in the U.K. Independent, a whole lot of countries (including China, North Korea, and Burma) might be subject to imminent U.S. attack.

Yes, Iraq is trying to develop (and may already have) weapons of mass destruction. But the policy of diplomatic isolation and containment and international pressure through the United Nations has prevented Hussein from using any such weapons for the past 10 years. And if he does have nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, they'll almost certainly see action in the event of a full-scale U.S. invasion (the same way Scud missiles rained on Israel during the Gulf War). In other words, military action may be the best way to cause the precise problem we're trying to prevent.

A war with Iraq would cost at least $60 billion and cause serious damage to an already reeling economy, according to a New York Times report (Aug. 2). It would also cost thousands and thousands of lives on both sides, including, inevitably, the lives of countless Iraqi civilians.

And suppose an invasion succeeded? Suppose the United States overthrew Hussein? Who would be his replacement? There's hardly a visible candidate, and it's unlikely that American operatives could quickly identify a credible alternative. (The record in Afghanistan is hardly encouraging.) Would Iraq become a virtual U.S. colony, run by an occupying American military force? How long would that last – and at what political and economic cost? Does the United States really want to get mired in another war, with no clear goal or exit strategy, in a region that's already awash in killing, warfare, and political instability (and in which we have shown very little ability to positively influence events)?

The antiwar movement in this country needs to mobilize immediately to demand an end to saber-rattling and preparations for an invasion. Without clear, strong, and growing domestic opposition, congressional approval will be routine, and the nation will get into a military mess to rival Vietnam. The time to say no is now.

To see our compilation of some of the best dissenting voices in the national and international media, go to www.sfbg.com.