The case for pre-emptive strikes...

President Bush has made his decision. In a landmark decision for official US government policy the president has implemented the 'first strike' policy.
  Way back in the 1970's and throughout the 1980's, the most prominent military policy between America and the USSR was the solid military standoff. The two military powers fortunately never engaged - due to the no-strike first policy agreed by both countries.
  This policy of the cold war, may well have prevented the always feared world war three. Yet, Bush has this week decided that such a policy is no longer merited. On what grounds does the president consider such a policy flawed ?
  Listening to Thursdays Bush speech at the United Nations in New York, I could not help but wonder just what the long term outcome of such pre-emptive strikes might be. It is now useful to look beyond the Iraqi 'problem', with what lies beyond Iraq ? Are we to expect the other two countries named in Bush's 'axis of evil' are to also have their governments overthrown ? Are North Korea and Iran both going to see their countries attacked ?
  I am quite a supporter of President Bush. As a sidenote,  the notion that he is dumb (remember those political leader questions), is entirely misplaced. If you look at the background of Bush, he is one of the smartest and most resilient of presidents America has seen for decades. I have always been somewhat saddened at how the masses latch onto a small piece of information - in this case failing to answer a few geo-political queries (something most of us would not know either), and then holding onto this judgement for the rest of his presidency.
    Lets get one thing clear, Bush is no idiot. What should only matter to us are what his motives are here. We now know he is going to attempt to install a new government in Iraq, but why does such a change matter ?
  Are we really to believe that the President is doing this for the benefit of the world's long term security ?
  Let us briefly consider the primary issues that Bush laid out in his address to the UN. First, the issue of weapons of mass destruction. We can be quite sure that Iraq indeed has some stockpiles hidden away of all sorts of nasty bio and chemical warfare materials. The question of whether he has anything of a nuclear type is something I'll leave to discuss another time perhaps. Whether he has a nuclear option is almost irrelevant when you consider that he has enough toxins to kill millions.
  Second, we know that Iraq has an awful record on human rights. Hundreds of thousands have been killed systematically in both the north and south of the country. Politically, Iraq is a dictatorship, no doubts about that.
  Third, Sadam has a long history of aggression towards his neighbours. He has invaded both Iran and Kuwait. His country has primarily been at war for much of Sadams reign.
  Knowing these things to be true, we must still ask ourselves why Bush has changed to a pre-emptive policy. Despite the 911' event, Iraq has remained somewhat silent on the world scene, so why does Bush now consider it appropriate to overthrow Sadam ?
  Do the president and Prime minister Blair know something that they arent telling us ? Does Iraq already have a nuclear capability ? Do they really fear some kind of limited insane nuke attack on some of the major cities of the western world by Sadam ?
The problem is that as ever, our leaders arent telling us the whole situation. I suspect something has been brewing in Iraq which Bush and friends simply want to eliminate.
   Looking back, i think the peace of the cold war era will be looked upon as an earie, but blessed time of peace. Now that America is about to go on the offensive, the world is surely becoming a more unstable and dangerous place.

Q. What would you do in Bush's situation ?  Do you sit back and pray that Sadam - or any other military regime never attack you. Or do you launch a first strike on them, take over their country, and try to install a government which will follow most of your 'code of morals etc' ?

Personally, my attitude on this difficult decision is to sit back. Throughout ALL history, outside intervention has always resulted in countries being messed up for generations - just look at the effects of the British Empire on Africa. I can not think of one country - and I include modern day Afghanistan in my thoughts, which has benefited from being invaded by an adversary.

The question for us now is no longer whether Iraq will be overpowered by US military power, the question we should now ask ourselves is just who is next in line for attack from American forces.
 

Contact Calrissian

*All data via the CIA World Handbook 2001.
 (yes, the CIA have their own little site)
 

Personal notes on Iraq
- the very high infant mortality rate
- literacy levels for women very poor
- life expectancy though is quite reasonable
  though considering the conditions of the state.