This is an unpublished letter to the editor that I submitted to the Chicago Tribune on February 10, 2003. It explains why it was right to go into Iraq and why it is still right that we did so:
"There seem to be three main arguments against President Bush's policy in Iraq. First, Saddam Hussein is not a threat to the United States. Second, he can be contained and stopped by policies short of the use of force. Third, we need to give the inspectors more time to do their job.
Let me respond to these arguments in reverse order. First, opponents of President Bush's policy say the inspectors have just arrived. We need to let them do their job. There are not enough of them, and they have not yet had enough time.
But the point is the inspectors are not there to catch Saddam Hussein in violating the Security Council's resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm. The inspectors are there to either confirm Iraq has disarmed or supervise its disarmament. As Hans Blix, the chief UN inspector has said, it is not a game of hide and seek. The Security Council, not just the United States, has determined Saddam Hussein either now has or has had weapons of mass destruction. If they no longer exist, the inspectors need to be shown how those weapons were destroyed. If they exist, the inspectors must supervise their destruction. If Saddam Hussein does neither, he is in material breach of Security Council resolution 1441, and action must be taken.
Second, it is argued we do not need to use force, even though Saddam Hussein is violating Security Council resolutions and refusing to say what he has done with his weapons of mass destruction, because he can be contained and stopped by policies short of force. The Soviet Union and the United States were enemies during the Cold War, and they never fought a war. Each of them had nuclear weapons, and neither used them. Saddam Hussein is not irrational. The same kind of policy can work with him.
One problem in using the Cold War and NATO analogy is it fails to acknowledge how unique NATO was. The maintenance of a multi-nation defensive alliance for over 40 years has happened once in recent history. The likelihood we can do this again to stop Saddam Hussein is zero. During the past twelve years, countries such as Russia and France (leaders among those who are arguing force is not necessary) have pushed to reduce or end the very containment policies, such as trade restrictions and inspections, that they now say make force unnecessary.
The fact is we will not be able to continue the current containment policies for any significant period of time. When Saddam Hussein refuses to comply with the trade restrictions which would allow him to import needed medicines and supplies for his own people, the United States will be again blamed for its inhumanity. The counties who are neighbors of Iraq are not going to allow United States forces to remain for 40 years, as we did in Germany. And if we were going to stay for 40 years, who would pay for the barracks and bases we would need to build?
Also, the inspectors will not be there for the long term. They were there seven years last time. Does anybody really think they will stay for even half that time now. As soon as he can, Saddam Hussein will kick out the inspectors again, and you can be sure neither France nor Germany will object. It was, after all, only the credible threat of the use of force by the United States that got the inspectors back into Iraq. If Iraq does not disarm, either voluntarily or by force, because the United States backs off, then there will be no credible threat to keep the inspectors in Iraq or to get them into the next place they are needed.
Finally, we are told Saddam Hussein is no real threat to the United States. It has been almost thirteen years since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and he started only one other war before that (when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980). Maybe he has learned his lesson. Maybe he will not start any more wars. Maybe. But then again, maybe not. Once the inspectors are gone (as they will be) and the sanctions are lifted (as countries such as Germany and France will eventually demand) and the US troops go home (they cannot stay forever), will Saddam Hussein be happy to just run his own country and mind his own business? Maybe. But then again, maybe not.
What I do know is that Iraq gives money, reward money, to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. If that is what Saddam Hussein is doing now, what will he do in the future? While no one knows for sure, this does not sound like a man who I want to rely on to play by the rules of civilized nations.
How many chances is Saddam Hussein entitled to? Already, he is not complying with the Security Council resolutions; he is lying about what he has done or is doing with his weapons of mass destruction; and he is rewarding suicide bombers. Some argue the inspectors have found no smoking guns. As Caspar Weinberger said, guns only smoke after they have been fired.
Saddam Hussein has had enough chances. If he does not want to comply with the Security Council resolutions, if he is not willing to disarm, if he is not willing to give up his weapons of mass destruction, then we must act. If Saddam Hussein is given another chance, his past indicates he will use it – and by then it may be too late."
Comments