– Not Time to Attack Iraq

   

Webmaster's Note:

When this edition of The American Voice originally was published in 1998, we had a different Web host. We are digging through our archives as we have time to recreate the original American Voice Web site. It is interesting that some six-years later, in 2002, President George Bush did the same thing, more or less, that Congress was wise enought to NOT let Bill Clinton do in 1998.



Now is not the time for the United States to attack Iraq. There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein is wrong. There is little doubt that Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to develop or stockpile weapons. But an attack on Iraq now is not the solution to the Saddam Hussein problem.

The American people do not  support a major  bombing  attack on Iraq. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted February 18, 1998, only 40% of those polled supported a major bombing attack. Twenty-three percent of those polled supported only a limited bombing attack. Moreover, 37% did not support any sort of bombing of Iraq. A major bombing of Iraq is not supported by 60% of the American people.

An attack on Iraq does not seem to be supported well by the world community of nations. Many nations that supported us in the 1991 Persian Gulf war do not now support a United States attack on Iraq.

A bombing aimed at destroying Iraq's mass destruction weapons likely would kill some 100,000 Iraqi civilians. We, the American people never have advocated the killing of civilians – let alone a massacre.

Although we did that in Japan, it was during the course of a war with a country that had directly attacked the United States. Dropping two Atomic bombs on Japan significantly shortened what would have been a very protracted war. It saved countless American lives. Even so, that is not one of the brighter spots of our history.

The Iraq situation is entirely different from the Japanese war. We are not now in a state of war with Iraq. At this time Iraq poses no direct threat to the United States. Iraq at this time is not invading a country which we have some obligation to defend.

If we attack Iraq with our lethal weapons of destruction and kill thousands of civilians, then we will be the evil empire. If we attack Iraq with our weapons of destruction and kill thousands of civilians, then we will not be worthy of being a member of the community of nations. If we attack Iraq with our weapons of destruction and kill thousands of civilians, we will be hated by millions of people in many countries.

Clinton has not been able to show strong enough world leadership to make the sanctions directed against Iraq stick. His resorting to violence to solve the Iraqi problem is due to a lack of leadership on his part – not leadership.

The only essentially unilateral action Clinton can take to hammer out a resolution of the Iraqi problem is a military one. That is  because we have the naval and air power to hit Iraq without help from anyone. We do not have the economic power to force Saddam to yield through economic sanctions.

Unless Saddam Hussein and his anointed son are taken out, they simply will continue to develop and stockpile weapons after any bombing aimed at destroying their weapons. Therefore, it makes little sense to attack the weapons. The weapons are merely the tentacles of a terrible octopus. To stop an octopus, you must attack the head, not the tentacles.

Iraq's weapons must be destroyed. But Iraq's weapons must be destroyed without killing thousands of Iraqi citizens!

We are told the reason we need the inspectors in Iraq is to identify the locations of weapons. However, since the inspectors are not being allowed to make those inspections then how do we know were the weapons are? We do not know where they are.

Since we do not know where Hussein's weapons are, how do we know where to point our smart weapons to destroy Husseins's weapons? The answer is we do not. So, then how are we going to destroy Hussein's weapons by bombing Iraq? Likely we will not!

Interestingly, many experts believe that a bombing of Iraq will not effectively stop Hussein from developing and stockpiling weapons. It does not make sense to put our troops in harms way and kill countless Iraqi citizens for a non-plan that will not be effective.

In 1991 we waged a very successful campaign against Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf. We stopped his aggressive tyranny in that area. We stopped and turned back his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. We did that with a minimum of loss of life – to both allied forces and Iraqi civilians too. The Persian Gulf Desert Storm campaign is something of which we all can be very proud.

There is no question that we should and must support our troops if they again are deployed in the Persian Gulf. However, the President and Congress of the United States have no business sending American forces in harms way when 60% of the American people do not support a major bombing attack on Iraq! The President and Congress of the United States have no business deploying American forces in an operation that will result in the massacre of citizens.

Clinton has no real plan to STOP the Iraqi development and stockpiling of weapons. Clinton's Desert Thunder campaign has all the same no-win, losing, earmarks of our outrageous no-win policies and blunders in Korea and Viet Nam – Polices that cost thousands of American lives.

Compare that to the very successful Desert Storm campaign conducted by the President George W. Bush administration. President Bush is an American veteran and war hero. He had the good sense to keep politics out of Desert Storm and give General Powell and General Schwartzkoff the fight-to-win green-light and the full support of the United States and its people.

There is only one way the United States should ever again go to war – that is with a full commitment to win and full support of our troops. No-win, no-plan, military engagements do not support our troops. Clinton's proposed Desert Thunder campaign is a blunder and falls far short of a full commitment to win and a full commitment to our troops. If Clinton is allowed to attack Iraq, he will lead us into a pitiful Desert Blunder.

Should Clinton launch his proposed Desert Blunder campaign in the Persian Gulf, we will support our troops 100% – but we will not support Clinton, we will not support Clinton's Secretary of Defense, and we will not support Clinton's war!

Congress should pass no resolution approving or authorizing an attack on Iraq at this time. Congress should however direct the President to deploy United States armed forces to kill Saddam Hussein and his heir son unless Hussein allows the required inspections and destruction of weapons.

  The Question & Results from the Washington Post - ABC News Poll (2/18/98)   The Question

"5. As you may know, the United States is warning that it will bomb Iraq unless Iraq stops interfering with United Nations weapons inspection teams. If Iraq does not comply, should the United States bomb Iraq, or not? (IF YES, ASK:) Should it be a major bombing attack or a limited bombing attack?"

The Results in Per-Cent of Respondents    

Major Bombing	Limited Bombing	Don't Bomb	No Opinion	Total
40%	23%	31%	6%	100%

 
 

(Note: we consider "no opinion" responses to be responses that are not in favor of bombing.) To see the entire survey, click HERE. The Washington Post has been providing excellent coverage of the Iraq situation issues. To go to the Washington Post's online edition, click HERE.

   

Note: Hopefully, Saddam Hussein will back down and there will be no war at this time. We do not believe the ends justify the means. Even if Saddam backs down and Clinton gets his way, bringing the United States to the brink of an improper war is not the right thing to do. We believe that Clinton's conduct in this Iraq situation evinces a failure of President Clinton to distinguish right from wrong – regardless of the outcome.

  Feedback   Our e-mail address is
    Webmaster's Note:

When this edition of The American Voice originally was published in 1998, we had a different Web host. We are digging through our archives as we have time to recreate the original American Voice Web site. It is interesting that some six-years later, in 2002, President George Bush did the same thing, more or less, that Congress was wise enought to NOT let Bill Clinton do in 1998.





Copyright & Permissions Notice  

Copyright 1998 by The American Voice. All rights reserved. Associated Press (AP) members may print this editorial in its entirety (only) in their print publications. Any person or organization may place a link in their Web site to this page. Otherwise, do not copy, duplicate, or redistribute this editorial or any parts thereof in any form.