War with Iraq
March 23rd, 2003- Lord Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston
We're at war.
Here's a viewpoint that isn't anti- or pro-war. It's just a neutral observation.
There may be another reason for this campaign against Iraq. Military disarmament and regime change are noble enough reasons, if the entire world also agrees that such actions are necessary.
The entire world, however, does not agree. Most notably, France, Germany, and Russia have all publicly declared their dissent with the United State's disregard for the wishes of the United Nations.
Anti-American sentiment is a common sentiment around the world. President Bush, despite what many may believe, isn't stupid enough to ignore such sentiment.
It's also well-known that this sentiment will only increase with this war. So why has Bush launched this campaign against former friend, Saddam Hussein?
Maybe it's the same covert reason the United States went to war with Iran in the early 1980's: for oil.
Oil powers and finances much of the Western world. One could extrapolate that the control of oil means the control of the Western world.
After the Iran-Iraq war, the United States was content with a U.S.-friendly leader like Hussein in control of the Middle East, because control of the Middle East meant control of one of the world's richest regions of oil. Thus, the U.S. supported Hussein's efforts against Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran with military aid.
(It is interesting to note that France, the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and at least ten other nations also supported one of these countries with military aid during the Iran-Iraq war.)
Moreover, a U.S.-friendly leader meant the United States could maintain its position as a major world power.
Then, starting in 1999, a number of national crises threatened to shake the U.S.'s position of power.
First, the vibrant bubble economy burst. Then, in the winter of 2000, an energy shortage hit California. Finally, on September 11th, 2001, terrorists attacked the World Trade Center.
(The U.S. lashed out violently when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Similarly, the U.S. lashed out violently at al Qaeda for 9/11.)
In some people's eyes, these crises showed how frail United States' position of power was. No longer could the U.S. be counted on for a strong economy. No longer were energy resources plentiful. No longer was the U.S. untouchable.
By this time, relations with Hussein and the United States had soured. The Persian Gulf War, a second war over oil, earned Hussein the nickname, "the Butcher of Baghdad". His actions as a vain, ruthless dictator with a taste for weapons of mass destruction were officially recognized (though they were already known during the Iran-Iraq conflict).
Hussein invaded Kuwait to gain a dominant holding of the world's oil supply. The U.S., along with a United Nations coalition including France, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and the United Arab Emirates, sent military support to prevent Hussein from doing this.
This time, in 2003, Hussein hasn't made an overt aggressive move against the United States or any other nation.
But yet, Bush has declared war against Hussein and Iraq. The Bush family's affiliations in the oil industry notwithstanding, perhaps Bush is no longer content with a U.S.-friendly leader in control of the Middle East.
No world power in its right mind would step down from a position of power. It would fiercely defend its position. How it defends its position may differ from nation to nation, but the root desires are the same.
If France, Russia, or the United Kingdom were the major world power, how would they behave in the United States' position?
Here's another way to look at this situation: a Major World Power (MWP) is suffering from lack of resources. MWP experiences multiple events that threaten its security, so it begins to look for ways to stabilize and strengthen that security.
At the same time, another nation, in control of one of the world's most valuable resources, has possible affiliations to terrorist groups that threatened MWP's security. These affiliations aren't very clear (and may not even be real), but MWP sees an opportunity to take control of one of the world's most valuable resources.
MWP must also deal with international pressures. MWP, being a major world power, feels a responsibility to the international community to decrease the political and social turmoil in this much-sought-after region.
For both internal and external reasons, MWP sees little choice but to takes advantage of this opportunity.
Now for the sake of argument, pretend that MWP is you and that you are playing a strategy-based game, like Settlers, Civilization, or Age of Empires. What would you do? Would you make a similar move?
These are games of resource control. The player that has most deftly used his/her resources to build the most assets or gain the most land wins. Say one player is low on wood resources. The player has a few moves now; the player can trade with another or just take over another player's land.
For better or worse, the United States just made its move.
What do you think of US vs Iraq war?
