Dear T-Bone,

The copy of your letter I received did not identify much about you, beyond your being a fighter pilot currently stationed in Turkey, so I don't know if you're stationed at Incirlik as part of Operation Northern Watch, or just recently deployed in anticipation of hostilities with Iraq. I would like to start off by saying how brave I think you are for accepting the duty station you have, and for being prepared to face the risks you are in the impending Desert Storm II. I hope that if conflict does arrive that you and all those in your unit will come through it safely.

I would like to respond to a few things in your letter, however. I feel it is important to disclose some information before I begin, to give greater understanding about my point of view and the arguments I make:

1. On September 11, 2001, I was living in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. My apartment was located 5 miles downwind from the Pentagon; I spent a week inhaling the cremated remains of 189 people. I spent 3 weeks riding the metro train daily past a closed Reagan National Airport, and over a month riding the metro train past a station at the Pentagon where armed guards were posted in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack.

2. I had an appointment in the Senate office building the day after the anthrax letter was opened, so but for 24 hours and the grace of god, I would have been taking Cipro.

3. Because I had been working as a recruiter hiring for positions at Reagan National Airport, and had lost my job, in October and November 2001 when anthrax letters were discovered in the mail system, I had a part-time job to pay rent where I was processing mail, and had to wear latex gloves and stare daily at letters with "irradiated" stickers on them.

4. I have shopped at the Home Depot where the DC sniper killed the FBI agent; since my apartment was in close proximity to two major highways, my neighborhood was a high profile target for his modus operandi, and suffered several times from traffic backups as roadblocks were put in force searching for suspect vehicles.

5. A close friend from college is in the army and stationed in South Korea right now. Another close friend from college has a brother in the 101st Airborne, whom he has told me has received deployment orders. To various other degrees, I know several people are likely to be engaging in combat during the war on terrorism, either in Iraq or in another front.

6. I completed a Bachelors degree in history in 1999, specializing in World War II and the Cold War, and have applied for Masters programs in International Relations and Political Science for admission in fall 2003.

7. I have known several people who work for the CIA and other government agencies doing analysis work related to the war on terrorism, including one who was my roommate for almost a year, who's particular job was as a leadership analyst on the Turkish government.

8. I did not participate in one of the peace marches in February 2003. I did, however, attend a protest rally last fall, opposing war in Iraq.

You have raised several important points, and I would agree with you that many people who are protesting potential US military action in Iraq do not have a strong grasp of the issues involved. However ignorant some of the protesters might be about who Hussein is, what he's been doing in Iraq, or even where Iraq is located on a map, there are several strong arguments in support of their position in opposition to war with Iraq. Whether or not Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, (WMD) the Bush administration has struggled with several questions over the legitimacy of this operation: the primacy of this target over pursuing other operations has not been justified; the timing of pursuing an operation against Iraq right now is not supported; and how to handle the aftermath has not been explained. It is not so simple as to just go in, chase Hussein out of Baghdad, hoist the American flag, and cheer in front of CNN. There are many questions a war would entail, none of which does the Bush administration seem interested in answering. Considering the potential implications, it is only fair that a just accounting be first made to the people of the United States and the world, before action is taken.

The biggest problem facing the Bush administration since September 11th has been the definition of terrorism. Al Qaeda, perpetrator of 3000 deaths at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, makes a fairly easy target for Bush to pursue, and for him to rally other nations against. However, by declaring a global war on terrorism, where all civilized nations should pursue these rogue factions, he has created a difficult foreign policy trap for himself, whereby he has to deal with Israel taking action against Palestinians, Russia taking action against Chechnya, and China taking action against Tibet, all in the name of anti-terrorism. Even in the US's own agenda, it is hard to explain why this firepower is being massed against Iraq: Hussein, after all, has been relatively quiet since he invaded Kuwait, and hasn't done much overtly outside his borders in the years since.

In the last 5 years, Al Qaeda has bombed US embassies in Africa, attacked a US warship (USS Cole), and destroyed or damaged the pre-eminent symbol of US economic power (the World Trade Center) and of US military power (the Pentagon). During the beginning of February 2003, the US raised its alert level to Orange, in response to a very strongly perceived threat that Al Qaeda was going to make yet ANOTHER attack, perhaps coinciding with the Muslim Hajj. So where exactly is Osama Bin Laden, and what is being done to capture him?

While the US has been directing its primary attention against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, North Korea has not-so-quietly kicked out IAEA inspectors, withdrawn from the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and basically declared itself a nuclear power, and that any attempt to change that, even economic sanctions, is a declaration of war. North Korea, by reported estimates, has the material to produce two nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles capable of delivering those warheads to the US mainland. That means that when Kim Jong-Il decides to snap his fingers, both Los Angeles and Seattle are turned into radioactive cinders: in less than a half-hour, the flight time for an ICBM, the 3rd-largest city and pop cultural capital of the US would be destroyed; in less than a half-hour, the US could suffer the loss of Boeing, the leader of its aerospace industry; Microsoft, the leader of its computing industry; and Starbucks, who produces the morning cup of coffee that most of American can't seem to do without. That overt threat is a lot worse for the United States than anything that is implied right now by Saddam Hussein, who according to current estimates has not yet achieved nuclear status, nor has missile technology capable of extending beyond the Middle-East.

There has been no compelling case why now. Hussein's stockpiles of WMD have been known since the 1980s when he gassed the Kurds, and inspections have been occurring since Desert Storm in 1991. If there has been a threat, why was it not acted on before? Why has it not materialized? If he could get nuclear, chemical, or biological agents (NBC) from the Iraqis, why would Osama Bin Laden not use them during the Sept. 11th attacks? With the resultant chaos from an American invasion, will supervision over an Iraqi stockpile of WMD or the scientists who created and maintain it be strong enough to prevent a terrorist faction or other rogue element from spiriting them off before US forces secure them?

One of the points in your letter was: "Do you really think they [UN inspections] are working? They haven't turned anything up, but do you really, honestly believe that the Iraqis are not hiding anything?" This is similar to many statements made by members of the Bush administration. It is an irrefutable position; irrefutable because imbedded in it is a refusal to consider the possibility that there actually ISN'T anything hidden. It is very likely that Hussein is hiding WMD somewhere; but if inspections are happening, and they aren't revealing any evidence of a WMD program, at what point does one consider that maybe there isn't evidence to be found? How big of an embarrasment would it be for a full-scale invastion of Iraq to occur, and then once the country is under US-occupation, for inspectors to still come up empty-handed?

For the sake of argument, and because it is more probable than not that there are WMD stockpiles somewhere in Iraq, assume that Hussein has them. The greatest threat from such weapons comes from their use: having NBC agents released into the environment to affect civilian and military populations in a targeted area. Thus far, Hussein has not used such weapons since before the Desert Storm campaign, nor is it likely that he will use them as an instrument of statecraft in the near future against his own people or against neighboring states in the Middle East. To do so would only invite upon him the wrath of the international community and the prospects of a war such as he faces now. For all that Saddam Hussein has done and is accused of doing, he is a rational actor, concerned principally with his own survival. That's why a decade-long policy of containment against him has worked.

However, if US troops invade, with the express goal of removing him from power, either by capturing or killing him, Hussein no longer has a reason to exercise restraint. In Desert Storm, he withdrew from Kuwait using a scorched earth policy, leaving massive oil well fires in his wake. He will almost certainly do so again, with Iraqi oil wells. If he has them, it is almost certain that he will release NBC agents into the region. Whether he launches them at Israel to provoke religious tensions in the Arab world, targets American military units hoping to stall a US-advance, or uses them again on his own people as punishment, there are likely to be high numbers of casualties, and potentially very long-term contamination of the environment where NBC agents were released. Of the aforementioned targets, the least vulnerable would be the US military, which would be equipped with chemical weapons gear. However, as a '60 Minutes' expose recently reported, significant percentages of the American stockpile of chemical weapons gear is considered unreliable. Additionally, it would only be effective if worn at the time of an attack, and would not protect US forces if they were caught by a surprise Iraqi attack.

Furthermore, and one of the scariest possibilities of all to consider: what happens if Iraq makes an attack using a WMD? It has long been considered a part of US military doctrine to meet force with force in kind. As a participant in the international agreements against chemical and biological weapons which Iraq is accused of flaunting, the US would not be able to respond with chemical or biological weapons of its own. That leaves the very chilling prospect of considering that it is part of the Bush administration's plans for conducting war with Iraq to use nuclear weapons in response to a WMD attack on US forces. In order to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, in order to avoid the possibility that a nuclear weapon is set off inside a US city, America will use a nuclear weapon on another country? Before that is dismissed as far-fetched, somebody please ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki how realistic they think it is that the US could use nuclear weapons in anger.

Alright. Let's continue the hypothetical: Hussein is a threat. Something needs to be done about him immediately. An invasion of Iraq is successful. No WMD are used, but evidence is found after the invasion that justifies suspicions of the Iraqi weapons program. So what next? Will US troops immediately turn around and go home, leaving the a vacuum of instability in the Middle East where Iraq once was? Doubtful, or at least hopefully so. What are the post-war plans? Will it be similar to the Morganthau plan for Nazi Germany that will reduce the country to a Stone-Aged agrarian state in perpetuity? Will it require a Marshall Plan-sized financial commitment to rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure? How large of a military garrison will be needed to maintain order, and how long will they need to stay? There's still a US military presence in Germany and Japan dating from their surrenders at the end of World War II, and in South Korea from the same era. If its a sizeable garrison, what will that mean for the overall state of readiness for the US military, and its ability to carry out other operations, particularly in continuing the war on terrorism? If it needs to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, can the US mount a credible war-fighting deterrent against North Korea? What if cooperative actions with the Philippine government against terrorist insurgents there require an expanded US role? Will the US have to reinstate the draft to maintain its operational needs? More importantly, how will all this be paid for, especially with the US economy suffering amidst recession and the loss of 1.5 million jobs since the Bush administration came to office? The military and foreign policy decisions the US is making concerning Iraq and the rest of the war on terrorism literally will cost billions of dollars. Does that come from Medicare at a time when medical costs are rising and the Baby Boom generation is expecting to retire? Does that come from cuts in educational funding? Does it come out of the budget for the new Homeland Security Department? At the same point that it faces these expenditures and financial decisions, can the Bush administration really justify another tax cut, particularly one beneficial to the wealthier segments of America, like the dividend tax cut is supposed to be?

There are a LOT of questions that simply haven't been answered. In the rush to action against Iraq, debate on these issues is being short-changed or swept over completely. Many of these problems can be mitigated by support from America's allies, but that's been extremely reticent in coming, if at all. While many countries have expressed support for the US and its cause, Spain and Bulgaria are hardly likely to be difference-makers for the military, economic, or political clout they can contribute. It is noteworthy that despite having already voted affirmatively in September 2001 on their Article 5 obligations to support the US, that several NATO countries have doubts about the Bush plan for Iraq. Turkey has had strong reservations about allowing use of its bases by the US; in particular, one of the questions for them is what happens to the ethnic minorities in the no-fly zones protected by Operations Northern and Southern Watch? Turkey has already rather strongly opposed a post-war creation of Kurdistan, and Iraqi Kurds have expressed concern that if Turkey is part of a post-war occupation force that the Kurds may suffer just as much repression as they have under Hussein.

It is important to court many of the countries that have thus far been in opposition to invading Iraq, not just to have their approval for attacking, but also for handling the aftermath. France and Germany are both significant military, economic, and political powers. France can veto any UN resolution put through the Security Counsel. (As for that matter, so can Russia and China.) Both France and Germany, probably under the auspices of NATO, would be a source of great support in garrisoning a post-war occupation of Iraq and rebuilding the country. And most importantly, since both France and Germany during the 1980s and 1990s provided the weapons and technology for Hussein to build his arsenal; in order to make sure that they don't do so again after this war, or similarly arm another future Hussein in another country, it is vital to have their support and cooperation to effectively engage and prevent the proliferation of WMD.

Other significant points you made in your letter where that opponents of war are more apt to question the word of George W. Bush than they are of Saddam Hussein, and that if Hussein "gets a nuclear weapon or if he gets long range missiles to deliver chemical weapons, he will be the biggest menace the world has ever known. He will be able to wipe countries off the face of the earth with one button and will blackmail the world to get what he wants." It should almost be a foregone conclusion that Bush would be held to a higher standard of conduct than Hussein: he is after all the democratically elected president of a nation that prides itself for the values of freedom, justice, and equality. Hussein is a tyrannical despot who maintains power at the point of a gun. It is not merely enough in its conduct that the US secure itself from threats and terrorists; it must do so through a method of due-process, showing that it practices the core beliefs which it preaches. What we don't want is for the American government to become worse than the terrorists that would threaten it, which is a strong possibility right now. Newly-installed security searches and metal detectors have curtailed freedom of movement at many public locations. Civil liberties and privacy concerns are being trampled upon in the rush to expand federal authority to prosecute terrorist action. The Patriot Act permits wiretapping and governmental subpoena of records once considered unthinkable. Essam Hamdi, an American-born citizen, is currently imprisoned in Virginia, denied his rights either to habeus corpus, to consult an attorney, or to have a speedy and public trial conducted by a jury of his peers; these are all fundamental rights written into the Constitution of the United States, as part of the Bill of Rights. In Kakfa-esque fashion, Mr. Hamdi is without right to even dispute the government assertions labelling him an "enemy combatant" that have made him subject to these abominations. Less than twelve months ago, the United States dedicated a memorial to George Mason in Washington DC, a Founding Father who protested the lack of an enumeration of these rights at the Constitutional Convention, and whose actions lead to the passage of the Bill of Rights. It would be the height of hypocrisy to finally recognize a man for fighting so hard to secure these fundamental rights, while at the same time allowing them to be trampled upon. Israel has plenty of security checkpoints, and far less checks on governmental actions then the United States does. Have they managed to stop suicide bombings? Is the comfort of "security" worth the price of liberty we are being asked to pay for it?

Were Hussein to get nuclear weapons, he would not be the " biggest menace the world has ever known." He would hardly even be the biggest threat to the Middle East. The US was and is still the only nation to use nuclear weapons in anger. In the name of fighting communism, the US influenced or attempted to influence internal domestic politics in numerous countries, usually with things backfiring rather badly: Cuba (Castro wasn't so bad when he was fighting Batista), Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua (remember the Contras that got Oliver North in trouble), Iran (the Shah, deposed in 1979, whose successors have made the country part of the "axis of evil"; and even before the Shah, Mossadegh in 1951). In the name of protecting domestic security, George W. Bush has already overthrown one sovereign government (albeit a corrupt repressive one in Afghanistan) and is threatening rather blatantly to pursue "regime change" in another, with no signs of slowing down or where he might stop. Bush apparently is even considering rescinding President Ford's executive order disavowing assassination, a reversal of a quarter-century of US policy, which would enable him to permit and actively pursue actions, such as which he is so upset at Hussein for having attempted to do with George H. W. Bush.

There's a biblical passage about to whom much is given, much will be expected. The US tries to carry a mantle of liberation and freedom with it; but in order to truly respect the cause of freedom, it is necessary to accept dissent, which the US doesn't seem to do very well in the realm of foreign policy. For more than a half-century, the US has proclaimed the benefit of having a court of world opinion; it can't simply ignore it now that it doesn't like what that court is saying, and still expect it to have any meaning. The League of Nations was the brainchild of Woodrow Wilson, part of his Fourteen Points; it failed and became irrelevant in significant part because the US didn't actively support it. However, the idea of a multi-national organization was considered important enough to try again after World War II, this time as the United Nations. For more than a half-century, the American government has tried to give the UN legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens and the rest of the world, because fundamentally, the UN is an extension of the same principles of deliberation and democracy that are the foundation of the US government. To provide evidence and action and to seek international support in such a forum is the most long-standing of American values: "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them", the first sentence to the Declaration of Independence.

September 11, 2001 was a tragedy, one which hopefully will never be revisited upon mankind again. The greater tragedy would be to lose the values America held before that incident. The US is a land of freedom and law; a nation that values peace and prosperity. Very easily, and very brutally, the US could dominate the world as a result of its military and economic pre-eminence. It hasn't so far. Many of the people currently in opposition to US intervention in Iraq want to keep it that way.