Now Is The Time For Action In Iraq

To the Editor:

Although I do not look forward to the uncertain prospect of a lengthy and difficult occupation of Iraq, I nevertheless support the invasion plans of President Bush.

Americans of any political stripe would agree on the following: (1) Saddam Hussein is a murderer and a sadist; (2) he is a liar of Hitlerian proportions; (3) he is a self-avowed enemy of the United States who has made a sport of dodging United Nations arms sanctions for the last 12 years; (4) he has a reasonable chance of developing thermonuclear weapons in the next four years.

So what do we do about a mendacious, sadistic, murderous dictator who eagerly anticipates placing his finger on thermonuclear triggers? We kill him and his henchmen as soon as possible. But why now, you ask. Can’t we talk a little bit more?

Murderous dictatorships thrive when democracies endlessly pursue “talking,” diplomatic solutions to conflicts. We’ve demonstrated our essentially peaceful nation by talking for 12 years.

Now is the time for action. September 11 generated a great deal of political capital and, hence, political will sufficient to allow our government to brandish a credible military solution to Hussein’s intransigence. But political capital has a limited shelf life, and it’s waning fast. Six months from now it may be too weak to support a credible military option. Having seen the sadly unproductive results of 12 years of diplomacy in this matter, I believe that we need to act militarily while we are able to do so.

But how about the objections of pacifists here and in Europe. War is wrong, is it not? Sometimes war is indeed morally abhorrent; other times pacifism (i.e., doing nothing) is morally abhorrent. In our current situation, objections to invading Iraq that are based on pacifism are an abdication of responsibility, an ostensibly principled refusal to think and act on matters that might disturb one’s sleep (e.g., thermonuclear terrorism).

Responsible leaders of free nations cannot afford the smugly comfortable luxury of pacifism. Because of our leadership role in the world, this applies especially to presidents of the United States. Our presidents must face, squarely and unflinchingly, unsettling dilemmas that would spiritually sicken the average citizen. For instance, if you were F.D.R., would you have attempted to bomb the train network leading to Nazi concentration camps, thus killing some innocent prisoners in order to save others? If you were President Lincoln in 1864, would you have been able to intensify your resolve to push a nation already groaning with grief towards an even bloodier final year of conflict in order to preserve the Union and end slavery? Presidents must make life-or-death decisions bereft of the splendid moral superiority claimed by pacifists.

Which brings us to the Western Europeans. For years they temporized while Muslims were brutalized and killed in the former Yugoslavian states. Disgracefully, the Western Europeans failed to step in resolutely and fiercely to prevent genocide merely hundreds of miles from their borders. Ultimately the US Air Force came from 4,500 miles away to speak the only language that despotic butchers seem to understand. And, astonishingly, these self-same disgraced Europeans democracies decry our “utilitarianism.” Perhaps they would have us duplicate their recent and despicable lack of response to homicidal behavior in their midst.

Sincerely,

Josh Hull

6 Fern Lane, Newtown                                                March 18, 2003