Brad Causey
Brad Causey,
Editor and Publisher
R. Shannon Pollard
Kevin Sommers
David R. Wehry
James E. Foy
The Freedom Letter
Give War a Chance!
We are currently fighting the "war on terrorism." Although the title is a bit open ended, there is no denying the fact our way of life has definite enemies. Our current war follows a few others such as:
The war for independence, 1775-1781
The war of 1812, 1812-1814
The war between the states, 1861-1865
The "splendid little war," 1898
The great war or "the war to end all wars," 1917-1918
War on tyranny (WWll), 1941-1945
The Korean war, 1950-1953
The Vietnam war or "the war against communist aggression," 1964-1973
The gulf war, 1991
And coming soon to the middle east... Gulf War ll!
I forgot to mention the cold war 1947-91, the two times we beat up the Mexicans in 1848 and 1916, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, the first stop during our current war, (Afghanistan) and the list goes on......
Do you see a pattern? We do seem to have ignored Gen. Washington's warning of "entangling alliances" and Gen. Eisenhower's warning of the "military industrial complex." Having "peace marches" and anti-war demonstrations in the news, it is a natural to discuss this topic. Is a war with Iraq necessary? Is war generally necessary? The answer to either question is yes and no. Allow me to explain.
First Iraq. Saddam Hussein can factually be called a ruthless dictator. This is not my opinion. Ask his neighbors, or even those in his own country. He has already used chemical and biological weapons against the Iranians, the Shiite minority in and around Basra, and against the Kurds living close to the Turkish border. This is documented fact. I forgot to mention the invasion of Kuwait, the launching of scud missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel. He initiated war against Iran. Casualties on the Iranian side alone totaled over 1 million. There is not a single (honest) Arab or Persian leader who considers him anything other than a threat. Let us not forget the attack upon the USS Stark in 1987. Need more proof? Check out the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal February 14, 2003. They reproduced the covers of the Iraqi newspapers on the anniversary of September 11, One says "Allah's punishment" with pictures of the twin towers burning. Inside the paper they gleefully report on the deserving destruction of the American infidels. (remember a modern dictatorship controls the media even more tightly than those of the past, such as Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union) The CIA has documented proof of payments of $25,000 to the families of palestinian suicide bombers. Saddam is not exactly someone you would invite to a family dinner!
Something else. Remember the Israeli F-16 raids on the Iraqi Nuclear reactor complex in 1981? We know now from interviews with scientists working on the program that without that bombing run, he was 6 months away from developing the bomb. Considering his track record since then, does any rational person doubt he would use it?
Without commenting on the irrelevance of the United Nations, (the subject of a future editorial) no additional security council resolutions are needed. He has violated each and every resolution passed since 1990. Two of which specifically authorize the use of force.
Let me restate the obvious. The current dictator of Iraq is a threat to his neighbors, his own people and to the United States directly. It is our duty to take care of the problem. The alternative is to wait until we are attacked again. End of discussion.
Now on to the subject of war generally. We were told as children that "violence never solves anything." I realize this is designed to stop children from fighting unnecessarily, but it is simply not factual. History is replete with examples. The Greeks had a problem with the Trojans. The solution involved killing the entire population of Troy. The Romans had a little trade problem with the Carthaginians, they solved it by killing the entire society and salting the arable land around the city. Crops still do not grow there. Hitler was a problem, the solution: violence. Remember that the free world tried everything short of this first. His response was to want more. More in this case was Poland, Belgium and France. He also attempted the conquest of England and Russia. Imperial Japan had designs on most of the pacific. For a short time they achieved it. Starting in June of 1942, the pendulum began to swing. It stopped in Nagazaki. Again, violence was the solution. One could certainly argue that the first Gulf war was incomplete because Saddam was left in power. But then we come to the U.N. again.... War is not the only solution, nor the preferred one,but historically it is often the final one.
Should the United States be the world's policeman? Most of us wish it were not the case. The current facts show that we are. We either assume the role which history and current events have thrust upon us, or allow the rest of the earth to descend into chaos. We must try. History we judge us harshly if we do not.
A final note. Since the "splendid little war" (Spanish-American 1898) we have been more than a nation. We are an empire. Our territories extend from North America, to the Pacific Ocean (Somoa, Guam, Wake, etc.), the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia), to the Atlantic Ocean (various) and back. Comparing us with all the empires in world history which have preceded us, we are the most benevolent of all. We have not been perfect, (Clinton vs.Serbia and Bush I vs. Panama comes to mind) but overall have a fine track record of trying to do the right thing. Contrast us with the Romans, the British, the Spanish, the Russians, or any other; we are far and away better by any rational measure. I am proud to be an American.
Comments Are Appreciated
Home | Archive | Biography | Quotes | Interesting Links