You don’t quite know what to think about invading Iraq. The government tells us that we live in a new age now, that Iraq poses a threat to our well-being and we should therefore attack them before they attack us.

The perception of peace-type people is that they simply live a delusion in which the Iraq war is wrong for unknown reasons, and it is simply another reason to protest.

A war on Iraq would be hell, most people say, but it looks to be necessary to protect ourselves.

With corporate mainstream media often regurgitating the administration’s line, it is hard to make out what opponents of the war actually believe other than blurbs that flash across the television or newspaper article.

In all fairness, this is also in large part to the mediocre job opponents of war are doing in getting the most important message out.

That is, in providing the American public with feasible and effective alternatives to a massive, preemptive and unilateral invasion of Iraq.

To oppose the war is not to sit back and do nothing; in fact, it is quite the opposite. All sides are in agreement that Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be a brutal dictator who, as reports show, has dealt ruthlessly with his opponents.

The peace movement generally believes that certain very tough and concrete strategies will prove vastly more effective in reducing the threat to the United States from extremists.

Therefore, I offer five alternatives to a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq, based on information gleaned from several prominent think tanks and humanitarian organizations. Much of the work comes from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) in Washington, DC:

First, allow the U.N. weapons inspectors the time and resources to complete their task. These inspections are the safest, most effective and least expensive way to be sure that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction.

Second, initiate regional disarmament. Iraq sits among very well- armed neighbors. Syria is known to have chemical weapons, Israel is known to have nuclear weapons, and Iran is suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction as well. We need to make every effort to initiate trust-building programs toward regional disarmament.

Third, expand and enhance programs to secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere. The Nunn-Lugar threat reduction program, which called for an eight to ten a year, $30 billion strategic plan to safeguard or destroy all nuclear weapons—usable materials in Russia must be given top priority.

Fourth, reduce U.S. oil dependency. The U.S. overdependency on oil gives inordinate power to Saddam Hussein. If we were to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, increase energy efficiency and develop low-cost renewable energy sources, then diplomatic leverage to reduce conflicts peacefully in the region would be greatly increased.

Fifth, use U.S. diplomatic influence to bring about a just and peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As an FCNL statement reads, “By addressing legitimate Palestinian grievances and bringing full diplomatic pressure to bear for a just and peaceful resolution, the U.S. could deprive Saddam of internal and external allies, as well as of his rationale for obtaining advanced weapons.”

If, as the current administration states, the goal is to make the American people safer, then the planned war will arguably do the opposite. Many experts believe that an attack on Iraq will do little more than fan anti-U.S. sentiment and may only provide fuel for extremists to carry out more attacks on the United States and gain support. The hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction is yet to be seen and even so, a war may not even prove the most effective way of dealing with that threat.

So why the push for war? Conveniently, the current war propaganda campaign is spearheaded by politicians with deep connections to war contractors and the oil industry. These politicians peddle a war that seems little more than an attempt to distract the American people serious problems facing our nation and to gain unlimited access at Iraq’s vast oil reserves.

The elite few who stand to benefit from an invasion of Iraq also happen to be those who run our oil companies, weapons contractors and our government.

Will the American people be safer after enraging people who are in need of assistance, not harm? Likely not.

The war can be stopped. The anti-war movement is growing rapidly and your voice is needed. Equipped with these and other alternatives to war, you can engage friends and relatives in meaningful conversation.

In order to reduce any violent threat to the United States, our government must immediately embark on a journey to repair international relations in order to deprive extremists of the support and resources necessary to perpetrate any acts of violence.

Threats from weapons of mass destruction can be more effectively contained with greater international enforcement cooperation.

A unilateral, pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq will likely prove counterproductive, expensive and disastrous and should be prevented at all costs.

Omar Tesdell

is a junior in journalism

and mass communication from Slater. He is the Daily’s online editor.