In 2002 the United States military invaded Iraq because of suspected weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, and the threat in which Saddam Hussein posed with access to those weapons. By the end of that war in 2011 more than 4,500 US military members lost their life. Conservative estimates show at least 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, caused by US forces. Thousands of other Iraqis, even 12 years after the initial attack, are without access to electricity, running water, or a stable environment to live. Iraq did not have any WMDs, at least that the US was able to confiscate and verify. The US was successful in capturing Hussein and he was charged for his crimes and sentenced to death.
The question remains, is the US any safer because of Hussein’s departure?
The reason the answer to this question is important is because the US is in the same situation now, with Iran, as it was with Iraq in 2001 and 2002. A country is developing, or has WMDs, and the US/most of world doesn’t want Iran to have that capacity.
What would a US invasion of Iran look like, 4,000 more US casualties, 100,000 plus Iranian civilian casualties? Another failed state ripe for violence and terrorist activity?
It can be expected that if the same decision is made, a US invasion of Iran, the same results will occur that did when the US invaded Iraq.
“Violence is a cleansing force,” said Frantz Fanon. “It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.”
The number of civilian casualties should be enough to make the US rethink an invasion of Iran. Remember, there are survivors left. Brothers, sons, fathers, maybe even someone who never expected to oppose the US, but to some, the hatred, resentment, or even a feeling of protection, cause many to take up arms, giving that individual a sense of fearlessness and self respect and act as a negative force towards the US.
How can you demand someone to be peaceful, when they are the victim’s of your violence?
Alternative to war:
Reach out to Iranian allies, China, and Russia most importantly. Try to gain some common ground and have the opportunity to put multilateral pressure on Iran. Economic sanctions from the UN, hurts, but does not isolate Iran.
This seems unreasonable. Now, it most likely is. There are steps the US can take to make their military presence less known worldwide. If their presence isn’t felt, the likely hood of feeling threatened decreases. If a country, or an allied group of countries feels less threatened, the more likely they are to decrease their growth in military strength.
President John Kennedy implemented a similar type program after the Cuban nuclear scare, that he called “a strategy of peace.” Kennedy also said, “our problems are man-made... and can be solved by man.” This was during a speech given at American University where he announced the first unilateral initiative: the US was stopping all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, and would not resume unless another country did.
Because of this, Russia not only stopped testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere but Premier Khrushchev ordered the production of Russian strategic bombers to be halted.
Charles Osgood wrote in an essay, Disarmament Demands Grit, “I do not think that anyone who lived through that period will deny that there was a definite warming of American attitudes towards Russians, and the same is reported fro Russian attitudes towards American’s. The Russians even coined their own name for the new strategy, ‘the policy of mutual example.’”
Soon after both sides showed progress, a reduction in trade barriers between the US and Russia happened, allowing President Kennedy to approve the sale of $250 million worth of wheat to the Soviet Union.
Why couldn’t the US adopt the same program now? Instead of responding to threats with other threats, why not show a sense of logic and reason? All too often, when two oppositions disagree, the communication is no longer free, it is limited to threats and often times, broken promises.
Albert Einstein wrote, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”
This process, this alternative to war, is not an event. It is not something that is immediately stimulating. This isn’t Spongebob. It is a process. Total disarmament will not be achieved in one fatal swoop. It will not be covered by CNN and it won’t be on a bumper sticker. But even small attempts, by both sides can considerably lessen the chance of war, save lives, save economies, and save the planet from nuclear destruction.
There are four clear benefits for a properly designed arms control agreement, even if they only act as a stepping-stone to a more peaceful relationship.
The first benefit of arms control is it reduces the chances of war breaking out. If each side becomes less worried about it’s opponent is accumulation in weapons, it makes that country less likely to initiate an attack. The second benefit reduces the destruction of war. If each side disarms their biggest (nuclear) weapons, it does less collateral damage. Third, it costs less. It puts less of a burden on a country’s people, also lessens the amount of generalized or exaggerated information the government disseminates to try and gain extra support to fund military actions. Fourth, if agreements are lived up to, a sense of confidence and cooperation can start building. Improving not only aggressive or war like sentiments but could also improve trade agreements, and pave the way to make a future ally.
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. said, “God didn't call America to do what she's doing in the world now. God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.”
We listened to most of what he said; I’m listening to this too. Iran isn’t Vietnam neither was Iraq but the sentiment remains true.