Powell Strives to Convince Self of Need for War on Iraq

February 10, 2003. After weeks of intensive campaigning to the U.N. and other world leaders to convince them of the necessity of a U.S. attack on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell is now striving to convince himself.

“After last week’s address to the U.N. Security Council, I just started thinking,” Powell remarked. “I mean, we all know that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. We all know that he oppresses, manipulates, enslaves, terrorizes, and murders his own people with more glee and satisfaction and less remorse than you or I would have if we swatted an irksome horsefly. Saddam Hussein is morally bankrupt, and we also all know that he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. And he knows that we know. There is no question that he can and does hide the evidence from the U.N. weapons inspectors. He’s bad news, and everyone knows it, from the world leaders to the poor, suffering, downtrodden Iraqi people themselves. Getting Saddam Hussein out of power would be a good thing.” Powell paused to reflect. “But, does it justify a war—in essence, a U.S. invasion of Iraq?

“Consider the consequences of such a war. From our perspective, invading Iraq would cost billions of dollars in a weak economy where the President is clamoring for more and more tax cuts. It would sap our efforts to rebuild Afghanistan, and it would sap our efforts to rein in al Qaeda. If you consider how Afghanistan is doing, the answer is ‘not well.’ Oh, yes, the Taliban per se is no longer in power, but warlords and other like-minded men have stepped in to oppress every man, woman, and child. Human rights improvements have been cosmetic at best, and the women, most of whom are still forced to wear burqhas, are no better off—they’re worse off, in many respects. So, when you consider the fact that we are already fighting to improve Afghanistan and deter al Qaeda, you’d be right if you concluded that we have our hands full.

“But that doesn’t even begin to address the issue of North Korea. They stepped up to our stance with Iraq as if it were a bluff for them to call, and call it they did. If allowed to continue with its weapons programs, the DPRK is a far greater threat to its neighbors and the West than Saddam Hussein. We can’t afford to sit that one out. But think about how this administration intends to engage North Korea: there is no talk of massing troops or dropping bombs. So, if we can solve the larger problem without an invasion, then why not the smaller problem?

“On top of that, there’s the plight of the Iraqi people. What casualties will they incur as a result of our military action? Surely, there will be collateral damage from U.S. military ops, but isn’t it a safe bet that Saddam Hussein will exploit the war by exterminating a few thousand of his perceived enemies with chemical and biological agents as a byproduct of his retaliation on our troops? Haven’t the Iraqi people suffered enough—would a regime change be worth the death, destruction, and carnage? And how would we ensure the establishment of a peaceful, lasting democratic regime that promotes justice and fairness for all? Given our track record in Afghanistan so far, the prospects for our success in that regard don’t look promising.

“And what about the American people? For the moment, ignore the American economy, the recent rises in joblessness, and the financial turmoil that a war would cause on middle-class and poor Americans. Forget for a moment the ill effects that the nation’s burgeoning deficits would have on the American public during a time of all-out war, or the resulting financial digging-out that could last for decades beyond the Bush presidency. Consider instead the very real physical risk that a war on Iraq would entail. 9/11 was the first attack on American soil, but, if our foreign policies persist, it won’t be the last—in fact, it will have been the first of many. 9/11 was a symptom of the larger disease of anti-American sentiment all over the Muslim world—Americans are no longer safe, no matter where they go; this administration’s foreign policy only aggravates the problem. We simply don’t have the manpower or money to wage all-out war against al Qaeda and Iraq—and North Korea. With the President’s focus on Iraq, our battle against terrorism at home will weaken, leaving us all vulnerable to increasing numbers of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. So, this war on Iraq could prove deadly to a great many American civilians who never signed up to fight or die in this war, not to mention the casualties among our capable, highly trained men and women in uniform, who will be risking their lives on the front lines.

“So, I find myself again questioning the wisdom of doggedly pursuing an invasion that will doubtless result in massive destruction and the loss of countless lives—American, Iraqi, Christian, Muslim, and otherwise—both at home and abroad. I further question the wisdom of pitting Christian against Muslim in what could conceivably become World War III.

“Hopefully, that’s enough to convince you that I’m not convinced.”