Concerning the ongoing debate about the seemingly imminent invasion of Iraq, I feel compelled to participate and offer a rebuttal to those who support the campaign to create a “regime change” within said state. The arguments for invasion given by our President and his supporters are as thus: Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction in the form of chemical and biological agents. Iraq is currently pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons and long-range delivery systems. Saddam Hussein has been a menace to the Middle East since time out of mind (or so they would have us believe). Lastly, Washington and London have an as yet unsubstantiated suspicion that Iraq has in some way given aid to Bin Laden’s terrorist organization and/or the Taliban.

To the first and second of these arguments I would say this: It is unrealistic to expect, especially given the international political climate since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States or any other significant nuclear power in the world to control proliferation of WMD and punish “rogues” seeking to acquire the strength of those who chastise them for an endeavor that is wholly within international strategic interest. WMD exist poorly guarded in some states, and the information needed to build them is readily available to anyone with a computer and an ISP. In addition, first tier attempts to wipe out an illegal trade in fissile materials executed by highly mobile and elusive kin-oriented networks are similar to trying to kill a flea with a cannon.

To the third and last of the arguments above, I must credit a professor, Dr. Robert Clinton, for making me aware of a fact that stood right before my eyes. Despots or tyrants have a peculiar penchant for paranoia. However, this paranoia does not rise from a vacuum. It comes both from a particular worldview and a resultant pragmatism. People pre-occupied with the gain and retention of power and glory are blinded to all but these interests. Being as such, they will do whatever they can to fulfill their ambition. Yet this requires a certain distrust of those closest to you. History proves this distrust is justified. Reference the assassination attempt of Hitler and, to nod to Prof. Ed. Schatz, who wrote of a religiously intolerant despot in Uzbekistan, the attempt on Karimov’s life in 1999. In the plainest speech possible: The cabinet of tyrants will take care of the tyrant.

If you ask me how much time will pass before Hussein is done away with by his closest, I must say that I do not know. However I do know this: It is better for the U.S. and U.K. to stay out of Iraq, and let Iraq take care of itself. Given how quickly and surgically the NATO alliance pushed Hussein out of Kuwait in the early nineties, I find it improbable that a tyrant addicted to power would risk the loss everything he values for the sake of “nuking” Israel, a U.S. embassy, ally, or the United States. Saddam prefers to advance his agenda more indirectly; the tributes he pays to families of Palestinian bombers is case in point. Instead of addressing Iraq in terms of invasion and regime change, perhaps we would do better to research exactly what creates so angry and anti-American a constituency, and act in accord to our findings.

Let my last point be this: If you take the United States at its word, then you must acknowledge that a “sterile” war is an improbability. Note the bombing of a wedding party in Afghanistan that killed numerous civilians. If this was truly an accident, then may it be evidence of our arrogance in assuming we can control every factor in a situation constantly in flux. There is nothing to say that similar events will not transpire in Iraq. These “accidents” combined with the altogether hasty vernacular of our President (among other factors too numerous to mention here) only serve to indict us on a charge of proliferation. That is to say, we will proliferate terrorists as we seek to destroy them.