On October 9, the Optimist raised concerns about President Bush’s warlike rhetoric concerning Iraq.
However, in the five-and-a-half months since, the president and his Cabinet have built an impressive case against Saddam Hussein.
The case was such that on Feb. 12, the Optimist endorsed a small-scale war in Iraq.
Now, with war again on the world’s doorstep, we complete our move to the hawkish side of the war debate.
War with Iraq will make America safer while helping to stabilize the Middle East.
In October, we questioned international and domestic support for a war. Currently, the majority of Americans support a war in Iraq, while Bush has amassed an international coalition of two dozen nations, including three of Iraq’s neighbors.
Although support in the United Nations would have helped, the international body has supported only two military ventures since World War II-the Korean and Persian Gulf wars. Presidents Kennedy (Cuba), Reagan (Grenada) and Clinton (Kosovo) all threatened and attacked without UN approval.
UN support isn’t necessary, nor is it the president’s job to pay obeisance to a powerless governing body if he feels it is ignoring his nation’s security.
Likewise, the roadmap to peace in the Middle East must eventually run through Iraq.
Taking out the bloody, aggressive dictator before he strikes again makes tactical sense, especially with the possibility of setting up a democratic example in a repressed, autocratic region.
Bush waited a long time-war with Iraq has held the top spot on the nation’s newspapers’ front pages since September.
The coalition has been formed, the nation is in support and the demands have been ignored.
We have long considered war with Iraq inevitable. We now consider it necessary.
And now that it is upon us, let us fight it quickly, topple Hussein and begin to rebuild a nation held hostage far too long.