Currently, I personally oppose the war with Iraq because I’ve lost any faith I might have ever had that the Bush administration would do right by the Iraqi people during or after any war. If we let the country go straight to hell immediately after we destroy any infrastructure they may have rebuilt since the last time we reduced Iraq to rubble, then there’s no doubt in my mind that any good this war might have done by removing Saddam will be negated. That said, the UN has gotten itself into a real pickle. When they agreed to Resolution 1441, they agreed to use force if Iraq refuses to disarm. The purpose of inspections is to verify that Iraq is disarming, not to find weapons Iraq is trying to hide. It’s obvious that Iraq is not disarming (for good reasons, mind you). Now the players in the UN are trying to
change the rules.
Certain members of the security council don’t want war under any circumstances — so why did they compromise with the Bush administration? Did they think that Saddam would fear Resolution 1441 and actually start a verifiable disarmament process? That seems unlike to me. If I’m Saddam Hussein (and I have trouble putting myself in the shoes of a vicious, irrational powermonger), no way do I disarm. Personally, I have thought that Bush was going to start this war at some point no matter what. I’d bet Saddam agrees. So why reduce your own capabilities when you think that war is inevitable anyway?
In other news, I’m somewhat awed by the massive turnouts at the antiwar protests worldwide (including America). This war is absurdly unpopular even with people who have no skin in the game. What happens if things go badly? When the bombing starts, civilian casualties will be inevitable? How popular will we be when video of destroyed homes, hospitals, and schools is airing every day on the TV news worldwide?