Should the U.S. Attack Iraq?
In September, following the terrorist attacks on the United States, Workable Peace focused on the question: What should the U.S. do now? Using the Workable Peace Framework and primary source materials, teachers and students explored a variety of viewpoints. To view these resources and activities, click here.
Currently, we are focusing on the question: Should the U.S. attack Iraq? This page examines this question from two primary perspectives: those who believe that the United States must take pre-emptive military action against countries that seek weapons of mass destruction, who might harbor or support terrorists, and those who believe that taking military action would be a horrible mistake. Since Iraq has figured prominently in the public debate on this issue, the articles used here focus specifically on whether or not the United States should attack Iraq. In addition to providing background information and different perspectives on this issue, we also offer suggested activities for teachers to use in their classrooms. Through these activities, students will gain a better understanding of this very complex issue while learning skills for managing conflict.
Historical Context
Background and History on Iraq
Analysis of the Conflict
Viewpoints on the War on Iraq
Other Resources on the War on Iraq
Classroom Activities
Extension Activities
The Historical Context: What has happened since the September 11th terrorist attacks?
In order to answer the question, What's next in the war on terrorism? it helps to review what has happened so far. On September 11th, two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. A third hijacked plane crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. and a fourth plane crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania. Altogether, approximately 3000 people died or remain missing.
Following the attacks, Osama Bin Laden was identified as a prime suspect and Afghanistan, under Taliban control, was accused of harboring terrorists. On September 12th, President George W. Bush called for America's allies to join the "war on terrorism," suggesting that any country that harbors terrorists could find itself a target of military action. On October 7, 2001 the United States launched the first airstrikes against Taliban targets in Afghanistan. By the middle of December, the Taliban had been defeated and Hamid Karzai had assumed power as the head of the interim government.
The Bush administration has continued to focus on the "war on terrorism" and there has been a public international debate about the next steps the United States government will take. In his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 , President Bush further sparked this debate by declaring that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq "constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." This statement has been applauded by some and has caused concern or anger from others. World leaders, journalists and the public continue to speculate about how the President's words will be translated into action.
(For complete text of the President Bush's State of the Union address, click here . For an example of the range of reactions to Bush's 'evil axis' comment, click here.)
For more detailed background information on the War on Terrorism, visit a timeline of events or a summary of events.
<back to table of contents>Background and History on Iraq
Iraq has been discussed as the central target for future U.S. actions. To examine arguments for and against U.S. military action in Iraq, it is important to learn about the history of this country and its relationship with the United States.
Located in the Middle East, Iraq shares borders with Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey. The population is of Iraq is approximately 23.3 million (2001 estimate), of which 72% are Arab, 23% are Kurds and the remaining 5% consist of a variety of smaller ethnic groups. 95% of Iraqis claim Sunni or Twelver Shia Islam as their religion. The official language is Arabic, which is spoken by about 80% of the population. The capital of Iraq is Baghdad.
Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire until 1920 when it was placed under a League of Nations' mandate and primarily controlled by Britain. During this period, Britain provided the country with a constitution and a bicameral legislature, and put King Faisal in power. In 1932, the mandate ended and Iraq was established as an independent state. The British continued to exercise considerable political and military power in the country and the regimes of King Faisal and his successor, King Faisal II remained pro-British. In 1958, King Faisal II was overthrown by a left-wing nationalist regime and ties with Britain were severed. A series of violent coups followed and in 1968 the Arab Renaissance (Ba'ath) Socialist Party seized power. Major General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr became President and Prime Minister or Iraq with Saddam Hussein as his deputy. In 1979, the President resigned handing over power to Saddam Hussein.
Following the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979, the relationship between Iraq and Iran deteriorated and war broke out between the two countries. Iraq was supported by the United States. During this lengthy conflict, both sides suffered significant losses. A cease-fire was finally reached in 1988. Despite substantial human and financial losses, the Iraqi regime grew stronger during this period and Saddam Hussein gained a firm grip on power in the country.
In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The UN Security Council responded by quickly passing a series of resolutions condemning Iraq's actions and then authorizing military force to be used against Iraq. In 1991, the allied forces led by the United States began bombing the country. The following month, larger numbers of Iraqi soldiers surrendered and the US declared a cease-fire, ending the Gulf War over. As part of the terms of the cease-fire, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was established with the goal of finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While the weapons inspectors made considerable progress, it became clear to many countries, including the United States, that Iraq was not cooperating and was continuing to hide weapons. In 1998, the Iraqi government evicted the UNSCOM weapons inspectors. The United States and Britain responded with Operation Desert Fox, a bombing campaign designed to wipe out Iraqi military targets. Conflict and the exchange of fire continues between Iraq and the Allied forces.
For a more detailed information on Iraq, click here. For a timeline of the above events, click here
<back to table of contents>Analysis of the Conflict: Issues to be Resolved
As you read through the viewpoints, think about the following:
A. The key issues that need to be resolved:
1. What actions should we take against nations we believe to harbor or support terrorism?
For example, should we take unilateral military action; continue to build international military coalitions; impose sanctions; support rebels to undermine/overthrow the current regimes? Do we need proof or can we act on suspicion?
2. What should US policy be toward Iraq, in particular?
For example, should we attack Iraq with U.S. military forces; support opposition forces; attack Iraq with an international force; tighten sanctions; remove sanctions?
3. What else should be done to prevent future terrorist attacks?
For example, should we invest in improving security domestically; build coalitions with other nations; examine U.S. foreign policy decisions that may breed terrorism?
B. The key interests, values, identities and emotions of the writers advocating these responses:
C. The writers´ perspective on the interests, values, identities and emotions of others who have different points of view, and who may be affected by this conflict.
The Workable Peace Sources Chart provides a tool for this examination. (html or pdf)
The viewpoints below represent some of the range of perspectives on the current policy choices facing the US as it makes its next steps regarding the war on terrorism.
<back to table of contents>Viewpoints on Should the United States Attack Iraq?
Perspective 1: The United States should take pre-emptive military action against Iraq and other rogue nations that may have the capacity to build and use weapons of mass destruction, or provide such weapons to terrorist forces.
The United States must wipe out terrorists and those who support them wherever they exist in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Iraq is thought to be sheltering or supporting terrorists, and has the motivation to join forces with Al Qaeda against the United States. Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons and has refused to allow weapons inspectors into the country. The decade-long embargo has not convinced Saddam Hussein to change his behavior. Furthermore we know that Hussein has supported terrorist acts and that he operates a terrorist training facility. A military operation in Iraq would need to be carefully planned keeping in mind the political consequences; however, such an operation must take place, with or without the support of the world.
Primary Source Accounts:
Phillips, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, responds to the objections that are being raised against the use of military force by the United States in Iraq, rebutting each with reasons why such an action is necessary.
Kissinger writes that the United States should continue to fight the "long war" against terrorism by eliminating the threat that Saddam Hussein represents as long as he remains in power. The writer suggests that the United States also insist on weapons inspections and back its demands with force.
Perle states that the United States needs to fulfill the promise made by President Bush to "make no distinction between the terrorists þ and those who harbor them." Iraq, controlled by Saddam Hussein, has been involved in terrorism and is a threat to the security of the United States.
Perspective 2: The United States should not take military action against Iraq or other countries, but should instead focus on non-violent, preventative measures to ensure the safety of Americans and the region in the long run.
Military actions against Iraq will breed further resentment toward the U.S., which will lead to further terrorist attacks. There is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and the uncertain outcomes from any unilateral U.S. military action are too risky. The only way to true peace and security is for the U.S. to cooperate with other countries to uphold international law, push for enforcement of weapons inspections, and strengthen international organizations that work for peace, like the United Nations.
Primary Source Accounts:
In this Op-Ed, Viorst explores the devastating potential consequences of a war against Iraq. He argues that the United States should apply the lessons learned from the Cold War, and apply patience to the conflict with Iraq.
Lehmer writes that the United States is responsible for more than 3,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan. He states that further United States military action will only create more people who are willing to perform terrorist acts. If we want to stop terrorism, we need to address the underlying causes, not focus on military action.
Hans von Sponeck, the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, writes about the potential negative consequences of a US attack on Iraq, and offers a plan for a political alternative.
Other Resources On the War on Iraq:
The Workable Peace Framework provides a tool for analysis of the multiple perspectives held by stakeholders in both of these conflicts.
Interests are the things a group wants, and their reasons for wanting those things. Values are beliefs in the group's “right” to something or a belief in the way the world “should” be. Identities are the words the group uses to name themselves, in terms of their history and culture, qualities and characteristics. Emotions are how the group “feels” about something.
These four sources are distinct in some ways, and helpful to separate, but can also overlap to a great extent. For example, in a conflict over land the following viewpoints and emotions might be expressed: “we want this piece of land, we believe that we have the right to this piece of land, we feel angry that they have taken this land from us, and we are the people of this land.” Even where authors hold the same general viewpoint, look for differences in their reasoning/perspectives.
1) Group Presentation Divide into groups by perspective. With your group, come up with 3 strong reasons to support your perspective. Think of 1 or 2 reasons to support the other perspective and then come up with a counter argument that will make your perspective¹s argument stronger. Organize your points on poster paper and present your perspective to the class.
2) Persuasive Essay Write a persuasive essay arguing for one perspective. Make sure that you include the arguments that someone who held the other perspective would make and explain why your perspective makes more sense. Be clear about what actions you think the United States should take and why. Include quotes from the articles provided (or other articles) to support your argument. Click here for a rubric to use to guide and assess student work.
3) Editorial Write an editorial to a local newspaper explaining what course of action you think the United States should take and why. Look at other editorials to help you with the structure.
4) Proposal for Resolution You are a mediator working for the United Nations. Create a proposal that both perspectives would consider reasonable (can be done individually or in a small group). Think about what values and feelings are behind what each side needs. Write or be ready to explain why you chose that particular solution and why you think it will be successful (i.e. accepted by both sides as reasonable).
5) Research Project Choose a topic related to the question What¹s next in the fight against terrorism? to research thoroughly. Possible topics include the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan, the different ethnic groups in Afghanistan and their relationship with one another, the new anti-terrorism bill, or a topic of your choosing.
6) Letter to a Political Official Write a letter to your senator or congressman outlining what actions you think the U.S. should take to prevent future terrorist acts. Make sure you explain why you think this course of action makes the most sense.
Other ways to get involved:
Want to share your ideas on these questions with others? E-mail them to Workable Peace.
To get back to the top of the page, click here.
The Current Conflicts page is a resource for Workable Peace educators and students interested in applying their WP skills to current events. In this section, WP profiles a current conflict or controversial issue of national or global significance, from the viewpoint of two or more groups involved. For past conflicts that have been highlighted on this page, click here.