Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iraq
There's a lot of nutty talk going on about Iraq these days. Should we attack? Should we first get a coalition and allies to back us? Is Iraq about to strike us?
Let me state a couple of ideas to cut through some of this crap:
All this about when we should attack is crazy talk, unless there is the possibility of us attacking unnecessarily. If someone is questioning whether now is the right time to attack or not, the answer is No. When it becomes necessary, we should attack. And not before. People talking about coalitions are sidestepping the real issue.
The question is, though: is Iraq attacking?
Part of the problem is that I don't believe for a second that Iraq is going to directly attack the US or its allies. If they did today, they would be gone tomorrow. As noted, we won't wait for allies or coalitions in such a case. And we won't hold back our wrath. So what's the issue?
I think that Iraq is most likely behind much of the terrorism against the US, Israel, and much of the West, including the first WTC attack by likely Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef, and perhaps even the September 11 attacks, that Iraq is providing weapons, money, and in some cases personnel, and that Iraq is working hard to keep evidence of its involvement in these matters secret, so it is difficult for the world to make a case against it. And I think that the US government is scramnbling furiously to get the scarce evidence together.
Whatever the case, I think it's unreasonable for the US to go to war without providing the evidence to its people. But even if the evidence is provided, unless Iraq is actively engaged in attacks against the US or its allies, a military strike against Iraq is unreasonable; and if it is engaged in such attacks, the US has every obligation to respond militarily. The evidence is the key.
Let me state a couple of ideas to cut through some of this crap:
- We should only attack Iraq if it is necessary to do so to protect ourselves or our allies; in other words, only if an attack by Iraq is in process, or imminent.
- In such a case, where an attack is in process or imminent, approval by allies or backing by a coalition is moot.
All this about when we should attack is crazy talk, unless there is the possibility of us attacking unnecessarily. If someone is questioning whether now is the right time to attack or not, the answer is No. When it becomes necessary, we should attack. And not before. People talking about coalitions are sidestepping the real issue.
The question is, though: is Iraq attacking?
Part of the problem is that I don't believe for a second that Iraq is going to directly attack the US or its allies. If they did today, they would be gone tomorrow. As noted, we won't wait for allies or coalitions in such a case. And we won't hold back our wrath. So what's the issue?
I think that Iraq is most likely behind much of the terrorism against the US, Israel, and much of the West, including the first WTC attack by likely Iraqi agent Ramzi Yousef, and perhaps even the September 11 attacks, that Iraq is providing weapons, money, and in some cases personnel, and that Iraq is working hard to keep evidence of its involvement in these matters secret, so it is difficult for the world to make a case against it. And I think that the US government is scramnbling furiously to get the scarce evidence together.
Whatever the case, I think it's unreasonable for the US to go to war without providing the evidence to its people. But even if the evidence is provided, unless Iraq is actively engaged in attacks against the US or its allies, a military strike against Iraq is unreasonable; and if it is engaged in such attacks, the US has every obligation to respond militarily. The evidence is the key.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment