<< Back 11/13/02 Disarming Iraq not the same as regime change By Bob Kimzey There is so much happening in the world that it is difficult to keep things in focus. There is the Israeli-Palestinian situation, with so many supporters of Israel having lost their moral mooring; there is North Korea; the World Trade Center aftermath, etc., etc. But here I want to focus on Iraq, war and peace, and atomic weapons. It seems as if President Bush and other top administration officials are marching off to war. They seem to be saying to Saddam Hussein, “You better duck, we are going to attack Iraq.” But at this time, war on Iraq is not necessary, it would be unjust, it is not inevitable. Many of our leaders speak as if they are in the trance of war, a trance that eats away at the capacity to reason. Even so, I am not saying that our government, or anyone in it, is a greater menace than Saddam Hussein. I am saying that I believe that we still have a choice about whether or not to go to war. The United States should have an over-arching concern for international order, multilateral agreement, and the rule of law. This should guide our international policies, rather than a course of unilateral action that is being pursued by the current administration in several areas of foreign policy. Unprovoked war is wrong. America has a long tradition of contempt for unprovoked attack. We should never feel that our nation has the unrestricted right to go to war with another nation when we have not been attacked first. In addition, the U.S. does not have the right to overthrow another regime, no matter how strongly we feel about it. We must not bully the world or appear that we want to bully the world. The use of the word war has become diluted in the everyday use of language. War, real war, means to kill and be killed. The use of the word war should not be some jacked up use of language intended to get people behind a cause, or show intensity of feelings. War on poverty, war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on crime, war with a neighbor over a property line; these are not real wars. It is true that violence can break out and people can even get killed in some of these situations, but, again, these are not real wars. Real war means death and destruction on a massive scale. When taking a position on war, specifically war with Iraq, it is important to think in personal terms about what might happen, rather than in vague, glossed-over possibilities that do not affect you personally. Ask yourself, is this something that I should kill someone over? Would I give my own life for this cause, the life of my mate, my child, my grandchild? For me personally, I have had consistent good fortune with regard to war. I was drafted into the U.S. Army between the Korean and Vietnam wars and, therefore, never had to kill anyone, nor did anyone try to kill me. This should be everyone’s fate; we should live in peace. There are many reasons to oppose war, some philosophical, some practical. Peace, at least the lack of war, although not always possible, should be one of life’s major goals. And that is reason enough to maintain peace now, and to oppose our march to war. In Iraq — and elsewhere — we should work in nonviolent ways to achieve peace. We should use law, negotiation, and agreements, as we have throughout our history as a nation (although we have far less than perfect scores on these counts). Disarmament and nonproliferation of atomic, chemical and biological weapons should be a major goal. With atomic, chemical and biological weapons, we should continue to do as we have done since World War II when we used the atomic bomb. Since then — for over 50 years — our policy has been deterrence. Deterrence may not work for men such as Hussein. In Iraq, if inspections are again fully explored and we are convinced that inspections and weapons removal will not work, we might have to take some military action. However, I emphasize again, this should be only after inspections have once again been tried. I am saying that, in the long run, we might be justified in destroying Iraq’s atomic bomb facilities, as the Israelis did in 1981. We might also have justification for destroying chemical and biological facilities. But, unless Iraq actually attacks us, we cannot justify regime change, a general war on Iraq, or any other action that goes beyond the purpose of eliminating atomic, chemical, and biological capacity. Bob Kimzey lives in the Crabtree/Panther Creek area of Haywood County. He grew up in Brevard, but has lived most of his adult life in Haywood County. He retired from the Western Regional Office of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in 1996. Kimzey is also part of the Peace Vigil that is held on Wednesdays from noon until 1 p.m. on the Haywood County Courthouse lawn.