Readers Debate Iraq

Editor: I strongly support Paul Weyrich's article that conservatives should reassess the assumptions, directions, and modalities of U.S. foreign policy. Warren Coats (an American economist advising the Central Bank of Iraq).

Editor: I wish to thank Paul Weyrich and Alan. Caruba for their thoughtful comments. I used to work not for ACU, but for the American Conservative Union Education and Research Institute under M. Stanton Evans. Some of my research done on human rights violations in post-Communist Vietnam during the summer of 1977 was used for a study which was read into the Congressional Record by then Congressman Bob Dornan. While I was a Libertarian from about 1973 onwards, I was very much for the Star Wars program since it was to defend the US.
I'm still for Star Wars, I'm glad Reagan helped bring down the Soviets, and I'm still for Star Wars and other weapons research.

Having said that, I believe that the defense establishment in the US, post Soviet collapse, is a budget in search of a purpose. If we'll recall, IMMEDIATELY after the collpase of the Soviet Union, but before the first attempted bombing of the World Trade Center, all sorts of hare-brained rationales were used to justify continued levels of defense spending. The
first was that we'd use our military to stomp out the drug trade in Colombia. Since the war on drugs is also expensive, and is causing most of Colombia's problems, this seemed like a silly idea even to those who still defend drug policy. However, after the first WTC attempted bombing, there has been an obvious move towards using the military to stomp on Islamic nations generally, not merely terrorist elements. Thus, sadly, the empire-building aspects of the Project for the New American Century are not new.

As Mr. Weyrich pointed out, most of the 'nation-building' efforts began under Clinton, and found ironic fruition in our involvement in DEFENDING Moslems in Southeast Europe both in Bosnia and Kosova. American Conservative Union wisely chose to use voting AGAINST such involvements as a Conservative vote. Weyrich also correctly points out that it was Bush who
promised he'd stop nation-building and withdraw from Bosnia and Kosova. When the Tampa Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000 in a half-page editorial, half of that editorial was devoted to excoriating Gore on his remarks on genocide in the debates.Sadly, after two years of

Presidential fumbling on the issue of Corporate Corruption, it was obvious that the Republicans would lose in November 2002 since Bush clearly made the recession which began under Clinton worse. You'll recall that when World Com went bankrupt in June 2002, the Dow headed
south of ten thousand and didn't get above it until late 2003. Instead of doubling white collar penalites (as he ultimately did in mid-2003, and which worked to help the Dow even before tax cuts were discussed), the topic of WMD in Iraq 'somehow' surfaced. This gave Bush an issue with which to rally the typical American around the flag and the President, and hence the
Republicans won in 2002. Sadly, having accomplished this 'real' goal, Mr. Bush went ahead with the war anyway. Even more sadly, the ACU saw this as a 'good thing' in its ratings system, which almost makes it appear that the ACU's support for wars is purely partisan - Democrat war bad, Republican war good.

Naturally, until we took Baghdad, the war had hugely negative consequences for the economy, and still has some fairly bad consequences even now. The Dow went below 8000 for quite some time due to anticipation of the war, and only came back up when we took Baghdad, and only got above 9000 when Bush finally did the right thing on Corporate Corruption. However, as a result of the war, we now have oil above $50 until very recently, gas prices increasing 40%, etc. The Tampa Tribune and the equally Republican Detroit News endorsed NEITHER Kerry nor Bush due to the war. True conservatives need to pressure Bush to 'declare victory and leave' once the elections are held in January, and the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz crowd needs to follow Ashcroft out the door - SOON! Robert Edward Johnson

Editor: The only way Paul Weyrich's analysis can be valid with regard to Saddam Hussein's Iraq is to assume that Iraq presented "no threat" to the people of the United States. However, both from the rhetoric of its leader and the changing international consensus towards containing his already demonstrated abilities to attack his neighbors (see the invasion of Kuwait and Iran) and the U.S. (see the 1st WTC bombing), and to use Weapons of Mass Destruction to murder his own people, the naive prognosis that Iraq could be "contained"
indefinitely is a fantasy.

Perhaps if the United Nations worked as John F. Kerry dreamed, your assessment of the Bush Administration reaction to reality of the situation in the Persian Gulf might be correct. However, the truth is that the UN Embargo (as it was being administrated) was killing more innocent Iraqis than did Operation: Iraqi Freedom and its aftermath and would probably have not survived the first Security Council meeting in 2004. As for your support of Mr. Kerry's other contention: that removing the dictator Saddam was somehow the catalyst for al Qaeda's recruitment and vendetta against the American people - the illogic of such a thesis is manifest by the empty acreage in lower Manhattan now known as "Ground Zero". The only way your, and Mr. Kerry's, position could hold water is to believe that the terrorist attack on 9/11 was somehow a direct result of the Clinton Administration making Bosnia and Kosovo safe for al Qaeda recruitment and training.

It seems to me that the United States has one of two options in the area of Foreign Policy. It appears that both you and Mr. Kerry support the option where America disengages from the World, and renews it pre-World War II isolationism, leaving its National Security in the hands the UN, lead by France's Jacque Chirac. A more realistic option, the one championed by the
Bush Administration, is international U.S. engagement across all sectors - diplomatic, military, and economic - to insure the future prosperity and safety of the American people. I believe a similar foreign policy was formulated by both Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 18th Century when they dispatched American Naval Squadrons and Marines
to the "Shores of Tripoli" after diplomacy failed to protect American commence and the American people.

The reality that seems to allude Mr. Weyrich is that it is not 1930, and jet aircraft and missiles, that are capable of crossing the Atlantic or Pacific( in a matter of minutes in the case of missiles) are readily available to any maniacal despot controlling vast natural resources such as oil reserves. Regards, Neal J. Lang, Boca Raton, FL

Editor: I read with interest your web pages. As a southern Californian, I was heartened by your outspoken support for reducing the flood of illegal immigrants. At the same time, I see oblique support for the war in Iraq, and am puzzled by how that coincides with conservative values. I hope that you might have some succinct article to explain this support. I'm not new to the topic, having held a top secret intelligence clearance during the Gulf War, and contributed to the development of numerous defense systems including the C-17 aircraft, AAMRAM missile, and Milstar satellite.

To me, the war in Iraq appears to be a massive budget drain that will weaken our economy for many years to come. After speaking with friends and acquaintances who are from the region and speak Arabic, it also appears to be contrary to our national security goals because it is fueling anti-American sentiments across the Middle East while at the same time making our military appear ineffective and clumsy. It appears that by remaining in Iraq we have become
the scapegoat for all problems in the country, and that opinion against us is steadily worsening with each passing day.

Given the repeatedly missed goal statements (finding WMD, being welcomed as liberators, linking the Hussein regime to Al Queda, completing the task within the initial budget allocation, improving infrastructure, creating a democracy, etc.) it makes me think the main goal must be understood by some but not communicated in a way I understand. Is the main goal one which makes the others irrelevant, such as instantiating the "common enemy" mentality in order motivate increased productivity or national unity? Or something else I'm just not grasping? Why wouldn't the most efficient solution at this juncture be to simply declare victory and withdraw? Scott Peer, Glendale, CA

Editor: Mr. Weyrich is wrong. We did not make a mistake invading Iraq. If we want to deter more attacks on our own soil we must show the rest of the world that we will not tolerate these kinds of actions. Do you honestly think that we would have enjoyed as much peace as we have if we had not invaded? When a country loses its aggressive stance, the perpetrators take this as a sign of weakness. The women who were tortured and shot in public by Sadam's sadistic actions and the many Iraqi citizens who were tortured when they spoke out about his sick regime would cry out from there graves at your statements. Although there are many more places that will have to be addressed sooner or later, our invasion of Iraq was just and we should back our President all the way. Division used to be treason.

Our country is being taken over by Muslim radicals, even on our college campuses. Does this not concern you? Even in the Bible the Lord God tells his people to attack countries that don't worship him. Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaacc and Jacob. The Iraqi people come from Ishmael. The two brothers, Isaac and Ismael, are destined by prophesy in the scripture to fight one another. The Muslim radicals would love to put a bullet in your head and mine. With democracy, the Iraqi people have a fighting chance to live a better life. The Muslims hate Jews and Christians, especially Christians who love God's people. I don't know if you are a practicing Christian or not, but all Christians should be praying for the success of this war. One day our country will belong to the world, but we can hold it off by praying. This war, will show normal citizens of the Arab countries that they can have freedom from tyranny, if it is a success.

If we shot all the men and women in this country who had stolen something, or been unfaithful to their spouses, or spoken out against our president, there would hardly be anyone left don't you think? I ask you to pray about your stance and think carefully about what would happen if America were to be taken over by these lunatics. I don't want my children to live in a world that controls them and hates them, and we are hated. (Even by countries we liberated so long ago.)

Now you are a divider to the Republican Party. Think about that. Sincerely, Nancy Ware

Email the Editor