Argues that an attack on Iraq by the United States is detrimental to U.S. and global interests and that there are much more effective ways to fight terrorism than by initiating a war with Iraq.
Over the course of the last five decades, the world has looked to the United States of America to stand up and provide a model of international leadership and stability in order to help manage international and internal military, political, and economic problems. Until now, we have acted as the world’s protector, taking down bullies after they have hurt and harmed others. This year, however, or early into next, our position, to never take the first shot that will start a war will change, if George W. Bush has his way. We, as a nation, have played a direct role in the improvement of the world condition by quelling conflict wherever we could. But, Iraq, the target of our renewed aggression, will prove to be a much different animal than the others we have captured and tamed since 1945. Iraq’s power is not really in its arsenal or in its military (both of which are small, primitive by comparison to the U.S., and ineffective), it is in its ability to motivate thousands if not millions of individuals to act without coordination in a violent and unpredictable manner against the United States and the rest of the western world. It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate the extreme danger and relative uselessness in attacking Iraq, to show that to do so is an exercise in futility, and that we can pursue much more effective means of preventing terrorism than to stir up the hornets’ nest.