Attack Iraq? No!

I was asked by a friend from work today about my bumper sticker. With some degree of friendly disappointment, they asked what I meant, and were somewhat unhappy with my response that it meant what it said, we shouldn't have attacked Iraq.

So, I thought I'd take a moment and expound upon that. There were really three reasons cited for going to war in Iraq. I'll explain my arguments against them.

First up is the argument that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda or that he was responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks. This argument has been pretty effectively countered by none other than our President (registration required for article).

The second argument is that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program that was active and that he was planning to attack the United States imminently or that he was planning to sell these weapons to terrorists who would attack. There is a latin phrase, usually used in legal arguments that is applicable: res ipse loquitur. That means "the thing speaks for itself". There are no such weapons, there was no such program. They could have used them against us in March and they did not. Terrorists could have used them now as revenge and they have not. We have scoured the country and the best we could come up with was vial of botulinum toxin in some scientist's fridge. Since botulism bacteria is what causes food poisoning, there's a few frat house refrigerators that qualify as weapons labs, I'm sure.

With the failure of these two arguments, pro-war advocates usually fall back on the fact that Saddam Hussein was evil and that he needed to be removed from power for the good of Iraq. Well, that's fine - I do not argue that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. He was about as bad as a human can get, and his vile sons were worse. He is pretty much as evil a man as there is. But it is not United States policy to invade countries and right wrongs. Yes, the fact that Hussein is out of power is good, but that end does not justify our invasion of a sovereign nation.

If we have decided on a new policy of forcible removal of bad leaders, let's hear the announcement from the President. He can tell us when Uzbekistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria and a host of other nations are due for their invasion. We're not going to invade those nations, of course. It is not now, nor has it ever been in the 227 years since this nation was founded, American policy to violate the sovereignty of other nations because we do not approve of their leader or his actions. We are not the world's policeman, nor do I think we want to be.

So that is why I say No! to the attack on Iraq. There was no reason for it, unless you accept the premise that the United States should pass muster on all world leaders and forcibly remove those we do not approve of. I'm glad Saddam is captured - the world is a better place with him in prison. But that end does not justify the means. Ends can never justify means in a moral society.