Why We Must Choose War

While I agree with the Minneapolis Star Tribune's August 3rd editorial that a debate on the issue is healthy and warranted, I disagree with those who oppose the use of military force against Iraq. In my opinion the justification for war with Iraq is demonstrated by answering five critical questions:

1. Does Iraq currently possess or will it shortly possess weapons that could threaten the United States or our allies?

In addition to their current stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons it has been estimated that Iraq will have a nuclear weapons capability by 2005. While these weapons may not be used directly against the United States they certainly pose a threat to US forces and our allies, in particular Israel, in the Middle East. And even if the Iraqis do not directly employ these weapons against us their support of various terrorist groups in the past makes the possibility of them supplying such a group with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons a very real threat. The incineration of three thousand Americans on September 11th leaves little doubt as to whether terrorist groups would choose to use such weapons against us.

2. Is there a link between Iraq and September 11th?

Even though a direct link between the Iraqi regime and the attacks of September 11th has not been established yet (Mohammed Atta did meet with Iraqi intelligence in the summer of 2001) it seems clear that the Iraqis have had contacts with Al Qaeda providing them with supplies and weapons in Afghanistan and possibly training Al Qaeda operatives inside Iraq. Should we wait for another attack which may kill 50,000-100,000 or even more and then go after Iraq or should we take action today that may save thousands of lives?

3. Will an attack on Iraq cause Hussein to unleash his chemical/biological/nuclear weapons as a last resort?

While I acknowledge there is some risk of this occurring I prefer to force Saddam's hand rather than sitting back and allowing him to choose the time and place for such an attack. The use of chemical and biological weapons is difficult under the best of circumstances. I would take my chances that the Iraqis will find nearly impossible to adequately coordinate chemical/biological strikes while they themselves are under intense aerial attack. Obviously any known Iraqi chemical/biological/nuclear facilities would be targeted early in any US attack and Special Forces could be employed to locate Scud missile sites and pinpoint air strikes against them. Patriot missiles could be once again sent to Israel and the Israeli population prepared to deal with possible retaliation (gas masks, inoculations, etc,). I would rather have properly equipped US forces dealing with such attacks in Iraq on our timetable than have a large US civilian population exposed to the threat on Saddam's terms.


4. Would the Iraqi people be better off with a new government?

The opponents of military action against Iraq often profess their concern for the suffering of the Iraqi people and claim a war would hurt them the most. While it is true that in the short run a war would cause civilian casualties and deprivations in the long run the Iraqi people would be much better off in an Iraq free of Saddam's dictatorship. Instead of the vast oil resources of the country being devoted to developing weapons and building palaces the income from oil sales (no longer restricted in a post-Saddam Iraq) could be used for rebuilding the infrastructure, educating the children, and creating an environment where a free market economy could flourish thus laying the foundation for a free and democratic Iraq. Japan and Germany are two excellent examples of such post war reconstruction.

5. Can there peace in the Middle East with the current Iraqi regime?

One of the best hopes for a lasting peace in the Middle East may be for a regime change in Iraq. Currently Hussein aids the Palestinian terror groups and rewards the families of suicide bombers with cash payments. He calls for all Arabs to unite in a war to destroy Israel and the last thing he wants is a peaceful settlement. His removal would eliminate one obstacle to peace while at the same time sending a message to other countries in the region particularly Iran and Syria. With Saddam in power there is little possibility of peace in the Middle East. Without him there is at least hope.

War is a terrible thing and should never be entered into lightly. However, sometimes the alternative can be much worse. Our failure to act now to eliminate the threat from Iraq may come back to haunt us later in thousands of civilian deaths in the Middle East and here in the United States. As Aleksander Solzhenitsyn said "The price of cowardice will only be evil."