2 of 3

Write now Article Tools

At the end of the Gulf War of 1991, the U.S. and its allies entered into a cease-fire with Iraq. Under the terms of the cease-fire, Iraq agreed to relinquish its weapons of mass destruction and allow weapons inspector's access to any site in Iraq. A great deal of Iraq's known weapons were destroyed within a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, Iraq began to fall short of its commitment to the international community.

On November 8, 2002, the UN Security council passed Resolution 1441. This was the twelfth and "final" resolution passed by the Security Council stating the Iraq had not complied with the cease-fire. This was billed as Saddam's "final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations." This was unanimous vote by the Security Council. Sadaam failed to comply.

In 2002, no one in the International community disagreed that Iraq had violated the cease-fire of 1991. The disagreements surrounded what action should be taken, but nothing about the fact that Iraq was not in compliance. The information on weapons of mass destruction did prove to be false, but it was not widely disputed at the time. Most importantly, the absence of weapons also does not make the war illegal, nor does it take away from the fact the Iraq was not in compliance with the cease-fire.

The second Gulf War does not have the same level of International support as the first one. Had the coalition been stronger form the beginning, say if France and Germany had backed the U.S., Saddam would likely have folded. He mistakenly thought France could protect him. There are issues with the Oil for Food program and how the people advising Jacques Chirac on the Iraq situation may have profited from it. There are also apparent discretions at the UN surrounding the program, and people advising UN officials on the Iraq situation.

If U.S. officials had not cared about minimizing civilian casualties, they could have leveled Baghdad and many other Iraqi cities. If Saddam Hussein had not placed his troops so close the civilian dwellings, and stockpiled weapons in schools, civilian casualties could have been limited. Saddam put targets in these places because he knew that it would slow the U.S. down. He also knew that it would work well in the court of public opinion in the U.S., Europe and the Arab world. Civilian casualties are the nastiest part of war. It would be a great thing if war could be waged without civilian casualties, but, unfortunately, it cannot.

The Iraqi government was absolutely sponsoring terrorist groups. Iraq supported, provided safe haven and training for these groups. They supported attacks in Iran and Turkey. There was also strong evidence that they sponsored failed attacks on U.S. targets. Al-Qaeda was not one of these groups.

President Bush and other U.S. leaders assumed that the Iraqi people would know what to do with freedom. They thought that these citizens would stand up and rebuild their country after Saddam was removed. Unfortunately, there are factions within Iraq who do not want freedom or democracy.

The fact is that the people who are dying in Iraq now are because Iraqis cannot get along. Religion is more important than the safety of their neighbors and families. Elections have been held, and schools have been re-opened. There are regions of the country that are doing quite well, yet you do not hear about this on the news. The media groups only deal in bad news.

Personally, I would not have gone into Iraq. I do believe that it is the responsibility of free people to help oppressed people become free. I also believe that there were, and continue to be, greater evils in the world than Saddam's Iraq.

Learn more about this author, Dean Armer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Iraqi invasion of Kuwait vs. American invasion of Iraq: What is the moral difference??
We want to hear your view. Write now!