Opinion

Security not worth high price

Shireen Connor
Guest Columnist

Even though I am part Irish, I was not able to have an enjoyable St. Paddy's day as I normally do. Monday, President Bush's address to the world hung like an ominous cloud over my head. On the streets, it almost seemed like business as usual, while halfway around the globe there were frenzied attempts at self-preservation.

As countless Americans at home were deciding at which bar to celebrate, Iraqi citizens were fleeing their homes and abandoning many of their precious personal belongings. I think of how I felt on Sept. 11, and I feel sorrow and empathy to think of what they must be going through right now.

I do not argue against the fact that Saddam Hussein is a pitiful excuse for a human being and should be brought to justice for his crimes against humanity. I do not argue against the idea that every nation, and every human being within a nation, has the right to defend him- or herself. I do argue, however, that with the current state of global affairs, the price for acting on this right is just too high to buy in the next 48 hours.

What separates Saddam Hussein's tormented people from us is their general lack of education. Here in the Western, modernized world we have been able to make great technological and social strides because we all have had the privilege of attending school.

Now that our country is so strapped for cash, many schools may close early due to the lack of public funding. We will soon be feeling the pain of those budget shortfalls here on campus in one way or another. Why are we sacrificing the needs of our future lawmakers, doctors or scientists for the sake of immediate public security?

The "potential" war in the Middle East was projected to cost around $200 billion, and during his speech last night Bush did not give us any updates on the waris cost, which is probably higher now. Traditionally, war has been good for the economy, but I am not too sure that we will be recovering from this anytime soon. We need that money here at home.

The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein will not be attacking us anytime in the near future, now that the entire world is watching him. Why did we send so many troops so quickly to the Middle East? Osama bin Laden, the individual who actually poses an immediate threat to American safety, is still at large. So many questions remain unanswered.

If Bush would concretely define and prove his argument that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to global security, then I would advocate use of force in Iraqi disarmament. But Bush's vague references toward the "intelligence information" behind his expensive requests are just not enough proof for me to justify the monetary or human cost involved in such an endeavor. If our children cannot get a standard education and their parents can not find jobs, is the trade-off of possible national security worth the risk?

Connor, a junior psychology major, can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu.