Why the U.S. should not go to war with Iraq, and Bush's hidden agenda

Essay by pwyncessCollege, UndergraduateA+, February 2003

download word file, 7 pages 3.3 3 reviews

President Bush recently announced a strategic global doctrine that justifies a "preemptive US strike" against any regime that is thought to possess weapons of mass destruction, but the CIA released a report that provided clear evidence that Iraq possesses less of a threat to the world now than at any other time in the past decade (Scheer par. 1). The report concludes that Iraq's chemical weapons "capability was reduced during the UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] inspection and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf War" (Scheer par. 7). The creation of the chemical and biological weapons that existed before the UNSCOM inspection happened to be greatly facilitated by U.S. company's sale of hardware to Iraq - sales that were approved during the 1980s, when the administrations of Ronald Reagon and George H.W. Bush both sided with Iraq in its war with Iran.

The report also notes that all cases that Iraq used chemical weapons occurred on or before March 1998, primarily against Iranian troops in a war secretly supported by the United States, and that neither chemical nor biological weapons were used against the United States during or after the Gulf War. The report also states that the CIA has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons. (Ditmars par. 11). Bush retorted to that finding by saying, "Although Saddam probably does not yet have weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them (Scheer par. 3). So if Bush's emphasis is on intent, not capability, there are dozens nations that the statement could be applied to, many of them run by dictators as malicious as Hussein, but they are not targets of Bush's wrath. Also, if Iraq were not to allow additional inspections, the CIA report...