A safer world?
Is the world going to be a better place if the US goes to war with Iraq some time in the foreseeable future? Is war with Iraq really in the US' national interest? Will Americans be safer?
Granted, war seems inevitable. But it only seems so in the shadows cast by the Bush administration's vision. This administration has never even publicly pretended that UN weapons inspectors would be able to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction. At the end of the summer, US Vice President Dick Cheney gave a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in which he opined that sending inspectors to Iraq wouldn't give us any assurances at all that Baghdad has complied.
While the Bush administration's concerns touch on wea-pons of mass destruction, it's main goal is unseating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, rendering Iraq no longer a threat.
No one is saying that Hussein is a good guy. But, is it in the national interest for the US to wage a ground war and then maintain an occupational force for some indefinite period? Hussein is now 65 years old. Even without a war, he'll be out of power in the next 10 or 15 years.
Is the threat that Hussein poses to the US sufficient to go to war? Even in its own region, Iraq is not a powerhouse. Most countries in the region spend much more on their militaries.
Whatever happened to our war on terrorism? How will ground troops in Iraq stop al-Qaeda? Certainly they'll have a good chance of preventing Hussein from arming al-Qaeda. But surely there are al-Qaeda cells regrouping in other countries. How will the world be safer because the US wages war on and occupies one of the least-armed, least-equipped countries in the Middle East?
War in Iraq seems like the slowest, most expensive way -- in terms of dollars as well as human lives -- to fight terrorism. War in Iraq, like all war, will have a host of unforeseeable outcomes but an end to terrorism would not be one of them.
If we really want to stop terrorism why has the US just monitored, and asked the Spanish military to search, a freighter carrying Scud missiles and tanks of nitric acid from North Korea, bound for Yemen, and then release the cargo? The freighter was unidentified, flew no flag and offered a false ship's manifest. Obviously those selling and importing the weapons were trying to keep the transaction secret.
Yemen has been identified as a country in which al-Qaeda is known to be regrouping. Many suspect that if he's alive, Osama bin Laden is likely hiding in Yemen.
North Korea is one of the anchors of the "axis of evil." It has nuclear weapons and has just announced that it is to restart its nuclear program, in defiance of international law. In August, the US growled at North Korea for selling Scud components to Yemen. In November, North Korea delivered weapons to Pakistan.
If this is truly a war on terrorism, why did the US follow international law prohibiting the seizure of the weapons cache bound for a country that we all know harbors al-Qaeda cells? Why should the US honor international law in this instance? When the Bush administration says we're at war against terrorism, doesn't it follow that we have every right to confiscate weapons that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and be used against us or our allies? Since the administration's rationale for committing US soldiers to an invasion force to bring Hussein down is based largely on his ability to harbor and/or arm terrorists, shouldn't we at least have confiscated those weapons?
The war on terrorism has been described as a new kind of war with no clear national enemy, so why is the US planning to get bogged down in an old-school ground war? And since we're planning to send US soldiers to invade Iraq, why are we allowing the region to become even more armed and dangerous?
So, will American people be safer if we go to war in Iraq? Definitely not. Those in the military will be put in a war zone and those at home will have the war zone brought to their neighborhoods in ever increasing terrorist attacks on US cities. Will Americans be better off? Will we be able to enjoy our "way of life" as an intensifying war requires more and more of our tax dollars at the expense of everything else? US citizens will be even more reluctant and scared to cut the military budget which is already the largest in the world by far. The US military budget for 2003 is US$396.1 billion. The next closest spender is Russia at US$60 billion followed by China at US$42 billion (2000 figures are the latest available for these two countries).
Will Americans be better off if the US wages war in Iraq? Only if they are involved in the military industrial complex and/or big oil.
Sandy Schaeffer
Taichung
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
At the same time as more than 30 military aircraft were detected near Taiwan — one of the highest daily incursions this year — with some flying as close as 37 nautical miles (69kms) from the northern city of Keelung, China announced a limited and selected relaxation of restrictions on Taiwanese agricultural exports and tourism, upon receiving a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) delegation led by KMT legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅崑萁). This demonstrates the two-faced gimmick of China’s “united front” strategy. Despite the strongest earthquake to hit the nation in 25 years striking Hualien on April 3, which caused
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past