8/27/2002 (Old Blog Entry)

I've been going through the old blog, cleaning it up so it's readable and came across my thoughts on 8/27/02. Here they are - unedited:

"On the political front -- it really feels like the U.S. is going to launch a "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq, and it feels like it will happen in the next month or two. A pre-emptive strike is pretty tricky wording for what used to be called a "first strike" and it is something that I cannot remember the U.S. doing before -- although I admit my knowledge of American history is limited. On the other hand, you could say that unofficially, the U.S. is already at war with Iraq -- and has been since the Gulf War. There is a blockade -- and air-space is controlled by the U.S. Not to sound like Hamlet -- but the arguments pro and con both have some validity. The "con" side suggests that:

a) By attacking you risk starting a nuclear strike by Israel if Iraq, hoping to bring other Arab countries into the war, hits Israel with chemical weapons.

b) You supposidly want the help of the Arab countries in the "war against terrorism" and this will only cause more hatred of the U.S. and more terrorist strikes.

c) No connection between 9/11 and Iraq has been shown.

d) Iraq has not been an aggressor against the U.S.

e) This will be a much tougher (more bloody) war than the Gulf War. You cannot take over Iraq without bloody house to house, urban fighting. Many civilians will be killed, and it will not be an air war.

f) The U.S. will then be involved in propping up whatever government they set up for years to come.

g) There is no alliance of European countries as in the Gulf War. This will basically be a unilateral attack.

On the Pro side:

a) Iraq is in violation of the U.N. settlement that was agreed to after the Gulf War because they will not allow American inspectors.

b) Iraq is close to attaining nuclear weapons (this was the V.P.'s major argument recently). Once they get them, it will be too late.

c) Sadam has used Weapons of Mass Destruction against his own people (The Kurds).

d) Sadam has terrorist training camps set up.

e) And this is the main idea -- it is only a matter of time before Iraq attacks either Israel or the U.S. and rather than wait for them to get more powerful, they must be taken out now.

f) All those people who said that we'd get bogged down in Afghanastan -- that it would be a bloody war -- were wrong -- and the same people who are saying this about Iraq are wrong as well.

g) Comparisons are made with Neville Chamberlin (sp?) and the treaties he signed with Hitler, which proved worthless, and just gave Hitler more time to get stronger.

What I wonder -- is what support for this war would be if:

a) A draft was started, with no college deferments.

b) Thousands of American soldiers were killed.

c) American civilians were put at risk, and killed and it was linked to a retaliation by Iraq.

If that did happen -- then the first reaction would obviously be revenge.

In short -- are the potential gains -- worth the risks? Right now, I'd say no. The case has not been made."