The Weekly Fare . . . February 26, 2003

To War or Not to War?

By now you've heard all the arguments - all the solid and sure reasons why we should either go into Iraq and vanquish Mr. Hussein or refuse the call to war and strive for Peace at all costs. There are, of course, a myriad of stances in between: "Give the inspectors a little more time and if the Iraqis don't cooperate, kick the stuffing out of them and re-invent the country..." "If anything is to be done at all, let the world do it collectively...." "Let's just hold the big stick over them, and if they flinch in the wrong direction, go in and take care of business..."

What has bothered me the most amidst all of this dialogue is that people and politicians (note there is a distinction) on both sides of the debate act as though they actually KNOW the right answer. They have all presented their arguments in cocksure fashion, as though their view comes compliments of a crystal ball - unimpeachable, irreproachable and the only way a lasting peace will ever be established in the region. How in the name of heaven can ANYONE be so sure?

The answer is, of course, they can't. If Mr. Bush follows through, things may sour quickly. We may well live through a scenario that involves heavy loss of life on both sides - a slogging quagmire of a war followed by a period of history marked by even more radical terrorist attacks and the further de-stabilization of this already wobbly spinning top of a world. Further, it could possibly motivate a terrorist cell to greater desperation and one warm Tuesday in July the world may reel back in horror as five men in a cigarette boat, with Coast Guard aircraft in hot pursuit, detonate the first above ground thermonuclear device in forty-five years... Just inside the harbor of Charleston S.C.

Seem unlikely? No more so than the World Trade Center collapsing into the streets of New York would have on September 10, 2001. On the other hand lets assume our President acquiesces to the voices calling for more inspections and a continuation of "Iraqi Diplomacy." The past is probably a pretty good indicator of where this will lead and based on the case made by Colin Powell last week, it seems fairly safe to say that the weapons that the Iraqis claim "not to have," do indeed exist.

A quick study of Hussein's personality profile, including what we already know about his willingness to slaughter innocent women and children as well as attack his neighbors because "they ought to be part of Iraq" should give us more than just a little "pause" for concern. Jimmy Carter, a man for whom I have much admiration, but who's foreign policy has never particularly inspired me, remarked last week that Hussein would "have to be CRAZY to do anything with the world knowing what it does...." Uh, excuse me, but with all due respect Mr. President, isn't that the point?

It occurs to me that the possibility of Hussein finishing up his atomic program and then selling or gifting such a weapon (or one he already possesses) to a group willing and capable of performing the above mentioned nuclear attack is at least as, if not more probable, than the previous scenario. And if it is true, as reported, that Hussein believes he is the second coming of the great Arab king, Nebuchadnezzer, what will his "parting shot" before death be if he is given the chance to make it?

I'd venture a bet that the seven million people living in Israel as well as most of his Arab "allies" don't care to know. I don't think any rational leader anywhere else wants to know either. Imagine for a moment that YOU are the leader of the country. You have weighed classified information for months and heard the opinions of your top advisers and leaders in both Houses as well as those from around the globe. Long term national security and world peace are your sole objectives. After all your deliberations you have come to the conclusion that taking action is likely less dangerous than continuing a dialogue that has proven ineffective for years. (The key word here being "likely" as you are also wise enough to know that whatever decision you make could prove disastrous.)

But there are many in your own country as well as the world who passionately believe a "wait and see" approach carries less risk and will achieve better results. The weight of the world is quite literally upon you.

What do YOU do. What do you DO?

If you are Winston Churchill, you study history and your enemy and then make what you feel to be the right decision regardless of how popular or unpopular it may be. Leaders in times of global crisis have almost always had to do so. George Bush appears to be in just such a predicament. This is not to say that history is going to necessarily treat his decision well for merely having the courage of his convictions.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln: "The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God cannot be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party ­­ and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to affect His purpose . . ."

My only advise to our President would be to emulate Mr. Lincoln and pray unceasingly. His apparent willingness to do so and the daily indications in our own lives that there is a God who is somehow willing to listen is ultimately our greatest and only reason to remain hopeful - for all peoples - on both sides of the conflict.

It is advise I am taking myself.