In the United States, sovereignty is king. Above all, we prize our freedom to absolutely direct the course of our nation, dismissing foreign claims to determine the path America will take. Our sovereignty affords us the latitude to act as a nation in a highly global world. Prized beside sovereignty is justice, the idea that all are dealt with equally, that discipline is meted out blind to extraneous circumstances.

Recent events have forced us to examine our sovereignty more closely than we have for generations. Americans wholeheartedly support, more than ever, the autonomy central to our governance and our continuation as we see fit.

The pivotal issue of domestic and foreign policy today is the question of invading Iraq. In this proposed pre-emptive strike, we are seriously considering abridging one nation’s sovereignty in order to accomplish goals in our national interests. While no one is arguing that Iraq would not be a better place without Saddam, we have also wholly convinced ourselves that our intervention in Iraq is beyond reproach. This begs the question: Do we value sovereignty conditionally, or do we value sovereignty absolutely?

If we value sovereignty absolutely, we value the sovereignty of Iraq as well. At what point is our value of sovereignty consumed by our national interest? Is it when we have legitimate suspicion, but no hard proof, of a potential threat? Is our value of sovereignty subverted by circumstances that may demonstrate coincidence or correlation, but not cause? Is the value of sovereignty that we have placed on other despotic regimes greater because we perceived similarly heinous leaders as maintaining stability and being in our national interest?

Iraq has hidden behind the curtain of sovereignty to protest U.N. weapons inspectors. Our response to bring them to justice is intervention. Yet our value of sovereignty has kept us from acquiescing to outside inspections of our prisons, to bringing our citizens to international tribunals and complying with international environmental criteria. If we set the standard of intervention in sovereign nations not in compliance with international measures, are we prepared to accept the same?

Intervening in Iraq is a grave, precedential matter. Let it be done only with deliberation about our deepest, most central national values rather than a spirit of revenge, arrogance or political posturing.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Erin Randolph, Rachel Faber Machacha, Charlie Weaver, Ayrel Clark, Zach Calef.