An anti-war petition circulating by e-mail yesterday pushed me and three good friends to decide, finally, where we stand on Iraq.
The e-mail stared at the four of us, all friends going back years, smack in the face pleading "sign me!" Out of respect to the friend who had sent it, we knew that any of us who were still on the fence would have to get off. We needed to sign the petition or not, and if we didn't sign it we had to explain why -- and pray that our friendships held.
We are middle-aged, middle-class white guys, three of us living in Minnesota and one in New York City. We're liberal or left-leaning in our politics. Here are the e-mails we wrote explaining why we signed the petition (1) or didn't (3):
#1: "Is War Sometimes Necessary?"
The Iraq problem is a difficult one for me. I don't look forward to war. But I
don't hear much from war opponents about effective policy. All they are
saying is... "give peace a chance." But, hey, that's not policy. What do we
do with Saddam?
Left alone, what will emerge in Iraq in the next 10-15 years? Giving the
inspectors more time is not effective. Note that the only reason the
inspectors are there is because of America’s threat of war.
The UN inspectors swarmed over Iraq for four years in the early 90’s while
Iraq continued a nuclear development program under their noses. The
French and others at the UN handicapped the inspectors so they could not
effectively respond to Iraq's refusal to cooperate. Finally, Iraqi opposition
forced the inspectors out in 1998. Inspectors are effective to verify a
cooperative regime's program of disarmament, as in South Africa. It is not a
disarmament program itself.
Korea is very dangerous. I do not see that as an argument against Iraqi
war. Cast your vision ten years hence. Saddam now has a nuclear weapon.
Now what? What would we do if Iraq moves back into Kuwait? I would be
comforted to hear the UN say "no more North Koreas.”
Article comments