Your Turn: War necessary evil; international law must be enforced

Healthy skepticism of government is an essential component of true democracy and I applaud those who exercise their First Amendment liberties.

In his Jan. 7 piece, Stephen Jendraszak accurately observed that "patriotism does not require blind allegiance."

Patriotism, however, does demand considered judgment. Unfortunately, most anti-war protesters substitute superficial rhetorical slogans that cannot withstand scrutiny for a persuasive presentation of their objections to the potential use of military force against Iraq.

The international community has demanded the enforcement of more than one dozen U.N. resolutions enacted after the 1991 Gulf War. It is not historically unprecedented for the international community to disarm a belligerent nation defeated in war; the 1991 resolutions sought to achieve this objective.

Since 1991, the Iraqi government has willfully and deliberately disregarded the stipulations it promised to follow in return for the imposition of a cease-fire.

Thus, Saddam Hussein is breaking the law. Proponents of the rule of law should take umbrage at Saddam's disdain for authority other than his own.

Mr. Jendraszak accurately characterized this as a "horrible evil;" however, it is a necessary evil in certain instances. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator seeking to rebuild - indeed expand - his military arsenal for offensive (rather than deterrent or defensive) purposes.

International law must be enforced: Iraq must be disarmed. Diplomatic means, including the sanctions in place for more than a decade, have not compelled Iraq's compliance with the resolutions bearing the imprimatur of the international community.

It is no longer the 1960s. This president has provided dispositive evidence to justify the use of military force.

Reflexive contrariness insisting otherwise is misleading.


Comments

More from The Daily






This Week's Digital Issue


Loading Recent Classifieds...