The war on terrorism, if we can still call it that, has taken an alarming turn. Secretary of State Colin Powell, known as the most reserved foreign policy leader in the Bush administration, recently called for a “regime change in Iraq.” Though he has denied that a military invasion in Iraq is imminent, that option is clearly being considered in Washington. Debate over the issue should begin by asking two questions: One, could we launch a successful military invasion into Iraq and two: should we?

Considering American military might, the answer to the first question is unequivocally yes. The result of the Gulf War supports this. However, successfully causing a “regime change in Iraq” could require a much higher human death toll, both of American servicemen and Iraqi civilians.

Seymore Hersh of The New Yorker, a man known for his contacts in Washington, reported that anti-Iraqi sentiment?prevalent since Saddam Hussein expelled weapons inspectors in 1998?has become invigorated since the military success in Afghanistan. They should remember, however, that Hussein?s government has proven over the past decade to be much stronger than the Taliban in Afghanistan. The closest thing there is to an organized resistance in Iraq, the Kurdish minority, have been reluctant to rally behind American air power, as was the case in Afghanistan.

Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party, told the London Times, “We will not be ordered by America or any others. We will not be a bargaining chip or tool of pressure to be used against Iraq.” Such sentiment may result from a long history of American betrayal of the Kurds, including the 1991 rebellion, inspired by George Bush Sr., which received no military support. Predictably, Hussein crushed the uprising. If an Afghanistan-style local rebellion is unsuccessful, the U.S. military could have to displace Hussein?s 424,000-man army and occupy large swaths of territory. This could prove much more difficult than the more concentrated goal of removing the Iraqi army from Kuwait, especially if building-to-building fighting were necessary in large cities such as Baghdad.

We should also remember that the Gulf War and its ensuing sanctions have resulted in over 500,000 deaths, according to the United Nations. In deciding whether or not to exacerbate this, we should first look to the case of hawks in Washington who support renewed action.

“We were attacked,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told The New York Times, referring to the Sept. 11 attacks. However, the government has failed to come up with convincing evidence connecting that tragedy with Iraq. Also, under United Nations auspices, the war would be illegal. This is explicitly stated in the U.N. Charter, which effectively outlaws war unless there is a Security Council mandate or an act of self-defense. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, our most stubborn ally, has voiced concern over this potential violation. Of course, the Bush administration has told us that Hussein?s renewed program of weapons of mass destruction is the main threat. In fact, his mass destruction arsenal was reduced by more than 90 percent during the inspections, according to Rolf Ekeus, who headed U.N weapons inspections from 1991-?97.

Furthermore, there is not one scintilla of evidence indicating that Hussein has any plans of using weapons of mass destruction in the near future.

If the Bush administration is truly concerned with weapons of mass destruction, it could start by working toward effective nuclear arms treaties that can reduce all nuclear arsenals, including our own. Also, if the government is serious about supporting democracy in the Middle East, it should first pressure our hard line allies in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, to adopt democratic measures. Further, Bush should eliminate arms sales to governments like Turkey?s, which used American weapons to butcher 37,000 of that country?s Kurdish population. Such measures could help end the agonizing conditions that produce terrorism.

Regarding Iraq, the Bush administration should work with the United Nations to barter further lifting of the antiquated sanctions in exchange for the re-entry of the weapons inspectors.

Show Josh Leon the error of his ways by e-mailing him at [email protected].