To be justified, President Bush’s new doctrine of preemptive war requires that the threat must be immediate, probable, and substantial.

The war proved that Iraq’s military, after 12 years without new weapons or spare parts and with its communications and radar in tatters from years of U.S. air attacks, could not substantially damage the U.S. The chance that Iraq would attack the U.S. or its allies was nil.

News reports leading up to the war showed that Iraq was withdrawing troops to defend Baghdad, not threatening to attack anywhere. New intelligence reports indicate that Iraq, before the war, had destroyed or buried in toxic waste dumps the few remaining pieces of equipment and pre-cursor chemicals that might have been used in previous WMD programs. Certainly, no operational weapons of mass destruction existed. Therefore, Iraq presented no immediate threat to the U.S. or its allies.

Contrast this with Afghanistan.

The Taliban government was protecting the al Qaeda murderers of Sept. 11 who presented a proven, immediate threat to do substantial damage to the U.S. and its allies.

No Americans protested the invasion of Afghanistan. All the American anti-war movement asked for was proof that a preemptive war in Iraq was justified. But events have proven the anti-war movement correct – Desert Storm II was unjustified, unnecessary and a violation of international law.

Jonathan Albrecht, Dixfield

Copy the Story Link