While I can understand Michael McKnight's general skepticism of left-wing arguments opposing a war in Iraq, I feel compelled to take issue with his fifth point.
McKnight argues that U.S. economic sanctions against Iraq are not actually killing Iraqis because they do not apply to food and medicine. He fails to mention, however, how Iraq will buy this food and medicine, since the sanctions do prevent Iraq from exporting anything for hard currency. Last time I checked, you can't buy things without money.
Perhaps he is speaking of the U.N. "Oil for Food" program since he asserts that Hussein is "funneling money" to terrorists. But surely, he recognizes that "Oil for Food" means Hussein gets food, not weapons or cash.
There is questioning of Iraq's rationing tactics, but I have never heard of food being sold for money in Iraq from any of Hussein's most right-wing critics.
While there may be some questionable distribution of the food, there still isn't enough of it to give everyone. Where will the rest of the food for this desert land come from when the United States has the whole world bent against it?
McKnight also fails to recognize that it is largely with U.S. support that Hussein came into power as well. Without American military aid against Iran, Hussein would have had difficulty rising to the level he has.
While there are good reasons to oust Hussein, arguments like McKnight's only proceed to further divide opinion. I doubt he even intended to convince his liberal rivals of anything.
War with Iraq, if carried out at all, must proceed under the recognition that it is a correction of sloppy U.S. policy, that it is neither a heroic effort to save ourselves from an arbitrary enemy nor a crusade to save the helpless Iraqis from themselves.
Jeff Kim
Freshman
Mathematics
