Dove and Hawk View of Iraq War

Hawk and Dove Views of the Iraq War

On March 18, 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. (The Washington Post) The War with Iraq is a very divisive issue around the world. Turn on any news show and you will see a daily debate on the pros and cons of going to war. Because of the situations that have occurred between the United States and Iraq, very different views and perceptions have developed. Much debate on the justification of the United States for being in Iraq, let alone overthrowing its "government", has been presented from both sides - the Hawks and the Doves.

My perception sees it like this. There are basically two different views of this war, one view being that of a Hawk and the other view being that of a Dove. The ideology of the Hawk symbolizing strength, sternness, and the notion of seeing what it wants and taking it and the Dove which normally symbolizes peach, love, and harmony, to me seems to be a perfect fit for icons of these two views.

Hawks idealistically are mostly republican/conservative in the political scheme of things. The United States and the world had a duty to disarm a rogue nation like Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant that had demonstrated a complete disregard for human life and needed to be brought to justice. The people of Iraq are an oppressed people, and the world has a duty to help these people. The oil reserves of the region are necessary to the world's economy. The WORLD not just the United States. An element like Saddam and his regime threatens the oil reserves of the entire region. The practice of appeasement only fosters even bigger tyrants. Saddam had continuously reneged on promises made to disarm any weapons and follow UN resolutions made. The removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime would uphold previous UN resolutions and give the body some credibility. By removing Saddam from power, the world of the future is safer from terrorist attacks.

Rush Limbaugh is a very famous journalist and radio personality. He is noted for his

Republican/conservative, somewhat brass ways of bringing to light topics with such

Debatable justifications. Limbaugh denounces those who are urging restraint

against force on Baghdad. "Everybody and their uncle is begging us not to go

into Iraq - the Europeans, the West Germans, the Saudis," Limbaugh said.

"While everybody wants regime change, they don't have the guts to do it.

So if it's gonna happen, we're gonna have to be the ones to do it." Limbaugh cited.

President Reagan's successful use of force against suspected terror sponsor

Moammar Gadhafi by attacking sites in and around Tripoli in 1986. "Gadhafi

has not been the same since his tent was bombed, and that's the episode if you

recall where our friends the French would not let our fighter planes fly over

France on the way to Libya." (WorldNet Daily). This statement just reinforces the fact

that appeasement only fosters bigger tyrants.

Limbaugh spends much of his programs discussing the need for deterrence,

explaining the world is governed by the aggressive use of force, and that the U.S.

is a prime target because of its role as lone superpower. "When your enemy

thinks and knows you've got something and you'll use it, it deters them. It's

when you don't build, it's when you don't keep pace, it's when you just try to do

this with words and treaties and all this weak-kneed, limp-wristed stuff that you

subject yourself to attack. (WorldNet Daily)

The Dove's point of view of this war urges avoidance of conflict through treaties, talks,

summits and conferences. Dove's believe that a pre-emptive strike lacks moral authority

and violates previous U.S. policy. This war, and any other for that matter, will create civilian casualties

which is something every country, not matter what their position in the cast system of the world may be, wants to expose their own people to. The United States Army's troops are being killed daily and the question to them is "Why would we want to have our troops being killed so frivolously?" The Dove's stance is that the UN