ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Miscalculation

| Sunday, March 23, 2003

For those who oppose the military action against Iraq, ask yourself why we have reached this point.

The answer is not that George Bush is an illiterate cowboy unduly influenced by oil interests, Jewish money and advisers, and a desire to avenge the failures of his father.

Dismissing those on the extreme left and right, almost everyone supports the disarmament of Iraq in accordance with U.N. resolutions, the difference being that some believe inspections were working and should have been given more time, while others believe they did not and cannot without a regime change.

Many who oppose military action now also opposed military action in 1991. Military action was required then because Saddam believed that if he played for enough time and if there were enough anti-war protests, there would be no military intervention.

If you believe inspections were working, ask yourself why they were when Saddam didn't even allow them in Iraq during the previous four years. If you are honest, you will admit that it is only because of a credible threat of military intervention. This is not to concede that such inspections can work. The paradox is that you and the French and their cohorts on the Security Council have so lessened the credibility of military action in the eyes of Saddam that military action against him is, once again, necessary.

Once again, he has grossly miscalculated the resolve of the American people and a president named Bush.

Jack Mennis
Hampton Township

The writer is a Marine Corps veteran and retired lawyer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me