The fallacy of "preemptive strike" as a new pillar of US foreign policy is being touted by Democrats as a reason why President Bush must be defeated in the next election. Once again, a blatant lie, pure ignorance, or plain stupidity...you choose. The removal of weapons of mass destruction by force is the result of Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions in addition to the terms of the cease-fire agreement that Iraq signed when Stormin' Norman kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait more than a decade ago. The original war was never concluded...a cease fire was arranged with conditions that had to be met...the UN, for whatever reasons it had, failed to enforce the terms of the cease fire as well as any of its subsequent "reminder" resolutions it passed in the interim dozen years of Iraqi nose-thumbing to the original (and very binding) cease fire agreement.

Preemptive strike? Last time I looked at any textbook on military strategies, preemptive strike was typically defined along the lines of surprise attack. I would hardly define our military campaign to remove Hussein from power and destroy its WMD capabilities as a surprise...and given that the word attack means to engage an enemy force, the lack of any spirited defense to date from the Iraqi Army is stretching that part of the definition as well.

However, I will agree that any American has the right to disagree with any policy or action taken by the US government. I defended the right to speak (smartly, stupidly, or ignorantly) in public during my 23 years of service just as our service men and women do today. Every day that I hiked into the Pentagon from the parking lot, I had plenty of time to stare at the grave markers in Arlington and remind myself of the sacrifice those people gave so that my family could live in freedom. I ask that those who oppose the war in Iraq look deep into the unemotional side of their minds and answer these simple questions:

1) Was America attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001? Yes or No

2) Does America have a history of military response to assaults on its territory, citizens, or interests? Yes or No

3) Does the President, as Commander-in-Chief, have the duty to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign or domestic? Yes or No

4) Are people who attack our nation and murder innocent civilians considered to be enemies of the United States? Yes or No

5) Are foreign countries that actively support people who attack our nation and murder civilians considered to be enemies of the United States? Yes or No

6) Does the United States have a policy of defending itself from attacks by its enemies? Yes or No

7) Do you support the United States maintaining a capable military force as deterrence against enemies who might attack the United States? Yes or No

8) Do you support the policy of gathering information about the violent intent and destructive capabilities of our enemies in order to determine the threat to the US? Yes or No

9) Do you agree that sources of information about our enemies should be protected so that our enemies won't find our sources and eliminate the sources? Yes or No

10) Do you believe that Al-Qaida terrorists and the nations that support Islamic terrorism, which include Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime he commands, are a serious threat to this nation that must be dealt with now because to wait would result in horrible consequences to our nation? Yes or No

If you answered Yes to the first nine questions and No to the tenth question, you are in denial and need a reality check...and here's why.

The evidence is not just President Bush and his senior officials saying that they have seen the classified information gathered by our nation's intelligence agencies and found it to be compelling in its nature and easily confirmed through secondary sources. I mean, for me, if Colin Powell says its true, then its true, because I know the man and he is an honest man of indisputable integrity.

No, the evidence is far greater than that...it is Hans Blix and his factual information confirming that the Iraqis continued to hide their WMD assets, obfuscate their answers to probing questions, and intimidate their scientists in interviews...it is the CIA publishing an unclassified primer on Iraq's capabilities to produce, store, and hide chemical and biological agents through a network of mobile production facilities and hidden manufacturing plants...it is Saddam's stepson ratting on him with volumes of first person testimony confirming horrible news about torture, rape, and murder gleaned from various refugees and asylum seekers who escaped from Iraq during the last decade...it is the purges of top leadership through execution to ensure loyalty from those who remain...it is the sense of profound evil one feels when looking at the hatred filling the eyes of chanting men shouting "death to America" when they spill onto the streets at the conclusion of afternoon prayers, their minds poisoned by the perverted teachings of mullahs who use the Quuran as justification for violence against all who are not muslim, mass discrimination against women, suppression of free speech, and denial of any form of representative government.

Contrary to those who would prefer to let the enemies of the United States grow strong enough to challenge us with more than a handful of highjacked jets, I believe that we have a moral obligation to see the threat that our inaction will produce and deal with it now. UN resolution or not, this nation has a responsibility to its citizens to meet and defeat any threats to its territory, citizens, or interests. If the enemy won't conform to a level of antagonism within which the United States can live in relative peace (like the cold war with the USSR), then the US will certainly force them to do so. To think otherwise is willful ignorance or undeniable stupidity.



Rip Kirby

rk_sss22602.html