Why the war with Iraq won't
make the U.S. homeland safer.

Copyright ©, number13, 2003.

Today's terrorist attack risk level is:

from terror-alert.com
threat advisory level
from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security
terror alert chart My objection to the war is that it won't significantly increase the security of the US homeland.  There are reasons to believe it will make us less safe.  It's going to be a very long time before the risk level goes to green/low - perhaps it never will.

The US has no problem with using military force to overthrow a government - and without regard to what the UN thinks.  A recent UN resolution for war would have been defeated.  There are few countries that could put up a strong defense against the US military?  How could they possibly hope to defend themselves or exert some deterrence if threatened by a loose cannon super power?  Maybe with weapons of mass destruction!  If I were in Iran's or North Korea's position, I'd be making as many WMD as quickly as possible.
And it does seem this is what's happening.  Iran has started a new nuclear program and North Korea has revived their program.  I would also want to "forward deploy" these weapons - for example hiding a nuclear weapon in Mexico.  Then if the US attacks, the nuke could easily be moved north, smuggled across the boarder, and into a major US city.

Even our allies must have at least considered this question in their think tanks.  For example, how could the U.K. prevail should they find themselves opposed to us in some future conflict?

Technically, this war is in violation of international law and Bush is a war criminal, although the chances of this being pursed are minute.  The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter requiring countries to exhaust all peaceful means of maintaining global security before taking military action, and permitting the use of force in self-defense only in response to actual or imminent attack.

In 12 years since the 1st Gulf War Saddam has not attacked the US homeland with weapons of mass destruction.  So how could anyone claim an attack by Iraqi made WMD is imminent?

If we do find that Saddam has a large stash of WMD, we'll never know that we got them all.  If a tank of nerve gas is buried in the desert, how will we find it?  Perhaps some Iraqi teen that is orphaned by the war will come to the US in a few years and release that gas in a US city.

Suppose that we had reasons to believe that Saddam had the means to have made 1,000 liters of anthrax.  If Saddam had turned over approximately 1,000 liters, with supporting documentation, to the weapons inspectors, would that satisfy the Bush administration.  I doubt it.  They would claim that if he turned over 1,000 liters that easily, he must really have made 2,000 liters, and is still hiding 1,000 liters.

Terrorists have used conventional weapons against us.  WMD where not used to attack the World Trade Center towers, the USS Cole, nor the embassy attacks.  Timothy McVey (or own home-grown terrorist) used a conventional bomb in Oklahoma city.  This war will not make it more difficult for terrorists to obtain nor make conventional weapons.  I'm sure that they would like WMD, but they can function very well without them.  Something as simple as a series of car bombs could have a major, short-term effect.

This war will incite more hatred for the US in the Arab world, and more people will be willing to martyr themselves as suicide bombers and terrorists.
Please, support
free speech
[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]

e-mail E-mail to: number13.
pessimistic.com Back to the pessimistic.com home page.
Read the fine print. Copyright ©, number13, 2003.
Key Words:
key words, if any, go here
Pop the clutch and roll!
Just another blind curve on the information super-highway.
A skid mark on my heart...
Pessimistic Logo Disclaimer:
This page represents my constitutionally protected opinions.

Copyright ©, number13, 2003.
Last Updated: 7 April 2003.