War with Iraq?

General Sullivan replies to Hank Greely. His reply is long and goes over ground we have covered before. Although such long postings discourage readers, I have decided not to cut it. Mike says: " I don't believe the three, plausible, unstated factors that Hank mentions are part of the Administration's thought process or that they are influencing policy for the following reasons:

First, the possibility that we want to throw our weight around to demonstrate to the world that we are the world's greatest power and really don't care what the rest of the world thinks has never been the American way of handling foreign policy. What President Bush has said in simple "Texacanese" since the most devastating terrorist attack in history was initiated on 9/11, that "you're either with us or against us" and if you are a terrorist, harbor terrorists or support terrorists we're coming after you. Much of the world thinks we had it coming and don't see the immediate threat to the US if we'll change our policies. The Administration feels it is acting in the best interests for the security of the American people and that we are not going to tolerate terrorist actions like in the past, and yes, we do have the power and responsibility as the only "super power" to maintain the peace and stability by taking out rogue nations and terrorists. We should never use force unless diplomacy has failed and we or our allies are faced with great danger. The world is a much more dangerous place today and many war or peace decisions will be made on not whether to use force but how much force to use when dealing with rogue nations or terrorists. We are taking the necessary action after 20 plus years of being on the receiving end to deter terrorist acts against the US and others. Iraq is one of the three "Axis of Evil" that the Administration states is the threat to world peace and stability, therefore, disarming Iraq is the highest priority at this time with Afghanistan being more or less under control and a watchful eye on North Korea with contingency plans being put in action. Iran has its own problems with intolerance and student unrest. Iran is watching American power surround them while carrying on our fight in Afghanistan and getting ready for almost certain war in Iraq. If going to the areas that support the biggest terrorist threats to the US is throwing our weight around then maybe we are.

Secondly, President Bush has defended his father's action not to pursue and destroy Saddam in '91 because the UN charter was only to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. He has stated this several times. He has never said publically it would have been better if we had taken care of Saddam in '91 during Desert Storm. President Bush believes we must now disarm and rid the world of Saddam and his regime because he supports the deadly terrorist threat to the US and other allies. This has become Bush's crusade since shortly after 9/11. The hope is the US acts with the blessing of the UN but if the UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions or responsibilities then we will be forced to do what has to be done. The fact Iraq made an assassination attempt on Bush 41 is not looked upon kindly by Bush 43, I'm sure, but he is not going to war over it.

Thirdly, Many do not believe bin Laden is still alive or is of consequence since he hasn't been seen in person since Fall, 2002. The name of bin Laden is certainly a rallying cry to Muslim fundamentalists but, so far, his reported recent calls for Muslims around the world to increase terrorist actions have failed to materialize. bin Laden's calls to action are not a factor in US policy toward Iraq. War jitters have had a deliterious effect on the US economy and the nation's debate over the war with Iraq certainly haven't earned more votes for the Republicans. If the Administration has miscalculated they'll be voted out of office in 2004. Even if the Administration's Iraq policy proves to be more harmful to the US and it's allies in the future, President Bush is convinced he is taking the proper actions by upholding his sworn duties to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution which includes being Commander in Chief. I don't believe President Bush even considers his re-election in 2004 in making Iraq policy as he is so deeply committed to the fact that Iraq must be disarmed for the safety of the US and the world. Who knows, he may act like President Johnson and decide not to run for another term if the Iraq issue is still dividing the country. I don't know what can be done differently for the US and it's allies not go to war with Iraq if Saddam doesn't disarm.

RH: Unfortunately, much of the world disagrees, and we cannot dismiss the disagreement as nonsense. In particular, Latin Americans would disagree vehemently about "the American way of handling foreign policy".

Ronald Hilton - 3/1/03