There is Just Cause to Remove Saddam Hussein from Power in Iraq
- Sep 9, 2002 - comment
Why military action, as envisioned by President Bush against Hussein’s Iraqi regime, would be justified under “Just War” ethical standards:
- Saddam Hussein is developing at breakneck speed weapons of mass destruction he plans to use against America and her allies.
- He has broken all agreements that were a condition of the ceasefire in the Gulf War, including allowing arms inspectors in his country.
- The U.S. was attacked on Sept. 11. This was an act of war and there is a direct line from those who attacked the U.S. back to the nation of Iraq.
- Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate President George Bush, the 41st president of the U.S.
“If you are looking for just cause, we have already passed that threshold.” Richard Land
Observations about the possible use of U.S. military force against Hussein’s Iraqi regime:
- Military action against the Iraqi government would be a defensive action. … The human cost of not taking Hussein out and removing his government as a producer, proliferator and proponent of the use of weapons of mass destruction means we can either pay now or we can pay a lot more later.
- Military action will be a last resort. History has proved that Saddam will not keep any promises he makes. He is an international outlaw beyond the reach of all international sanctions. Saddam is one of the major links in what President Bush termed ‘the axis of evil.’ The only way we will remove the threat is to remove Hussein. … It would be a strategic and sizable blow to terrorism to remove Saddam Hussein and his Hitleresque administration from power.
- Any military campaign authorized by President Bush would not seek to destroy the Iraqi civilization but would aid the Iraqi people in constructing a self-governing, representative democracy that would respect the rights of all its citizens and neighbors. This would not only strike a blow against terrorism but for freedom in the region. The establishment of a stable democratic Iraq would have a wonderfully liberating and stabilizing effect on the whole Middle East. It would suggest to Iranians, Saudis and Syrians that they too could have such a government of the people, by the people and for the people. That would be real peacemaking. … Our goal is not to kill the Iraqi people. Our goal is not to impose a government on the Iraqi people. Our goal is not to conquer and subjugate the Iraqi people. Our goal is to remove a really atrocious, war-crimes-committing dictator who terrorizes and enslaves his own people.
- If it has to be Britain and America alone defending civilization against a gangster masquerading as a government leader for the second time in a century, then so be it. It was the United Kingdom and America against Hitler. Most of Europe is delighted the U.S. took up that fight, including the Germans. The U.S. should not sit idly by waiting for her allies in Europe to indicate their support for this military action. While the world waits, Saddam and his henchmen are rushing to develop even more deadly weapons. No offense intended, but we have had to extricate the Europeans from conflagrations of their own making twice in the last century. I would rather trust our judgment rather than theirs. America and Britain will do most of the fighting and dying in any military campaign against Iraq, as was the case in the Gulf War. Having support from our allies and the United Nations would be nice but the only legitimate authority for sending America into combat is the U.S. government, not the UN and not NATO.
Excerpted from: “Land: Military Action Against Iraq Meets Ethical Standards for War,” http://www.bpnews.net , September 9, 2002
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, War