In response to Melanie Morris (Jan. 16), I encourage Americans to learn the facts and acknowledge the entire picture.
First of all, would the Bush administration please clearly reveal the "dispositive [sic] evidence" to justify the use of military force against Iraq?
There are reports of illegal importations of arms-related material into Iraq in 2001 and 2002; however, based on news releases over the past several weeks, U.N. inspectors have found virtually no evidence of active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. That country is also cooperating by agreeing to release scientists for questioning by U.S. and U.N. authorities.
The White House suggested it could decide in favor of military action "even if weapons inspectors do not turn up concrete new evidence against Saddam Hussein" (New York Times, Jan. 16).
Concurrently, al Qaida and associates are known to be hiding along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and elsewhere, and continue to carry out terrorist acts directly against U.S. and other citizens. Where is the concerted U.S. military force to address this threat?
There is also that member of the "Axis of Evil", North Korea, who is poking its nuclear "thumb in our eye" by threatening to "rain fire upon the United States," and wreak "uncontrolled catastrophe" (CNN.com).
U.S. Defense experts state that North Korea is the number one exporter of missile technology, and has documented evidence of chemical and biological weapons, along with at least two nuclear warheads. With one of the largest armed forces in the world, North Korea boasts that it is "ready for any military confrontation" (CNN.com).
However, the Bush administration recently offered possible "incentives" of food and fuel aid, should they dismantle their nuclear program. Secretary of State Powell claimed that the North Korea situation is not a "crisis." Rubbish!
International law must be enforced, but by whom? Mr. Bush stated, during the 2000 campaign, that the U.S. was not the "world's policeman," and was furthermore not to be involved in nation-building. It seems, however, that the U.S. is taking on the Iraq issue single-handed, with a sharp eye to a new regime.
Access to oil has long been the chief U.S. strategic interest in the Gulf region. Iraq's millions of barrels of petroleum could fund Iraqi national reconstruction, change the balance of power in the region, and "help stabilize gas prices for a generation" (Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 16, 2002).
The United States' position in the Arab world is tenuous at best; a pre-emptive military invasion of Iraq would ignite an enormous backlash. The U.S. is already deeply loathed by many across the globe -- we are a pariah nation to many.
Following a military strike, it is possible that Americans here and abroad will confront hatred and violence at a scale much greater than that which we already face.
I acknowledge that Saddam Hussein's government is a "difficult" one with a hefty list of violations. However, given the relatively clean "bill of health" thus far presented to Iraq by U.N. inspectors, a pre-emptive and unilateral military strike seems arrogant and misguided.
I cannot offer some panacea to the current situation with Iraq. However, I do urge Americans, particularly policy-makers, to study and thoroughly consider all the consequences of our actions.
No, this is not the 1960s (thank Heavens) -- we live in the age of computers and have plentiful sources of information to enable us to make informed and appropriate choices.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
