Sept 11 Journal
~ Monday, February 24, 2003
The New York Times
Letter to the Editor
February 23, 2003
To the Editor:
Re: "Power and Leadership:The Real Meaning of Iraq" (Editorial, 2.23.03)
The Times seems to be endorsing the notion that Iraq represents a current or future threat to U.S. interests that can only be dealt with through military means. Such a stance temporizes with what amounts to unprovoked U.S. aggression against a helpless country. The Times seems to hold out hope that things will settle down after regime change in Iraq is effected, and that afterwards we can return to politics as usual. But such hope fails to take into account the Bush administration agenda for perpetual war. If the administration’s best case scenario unfolds according to plan, more likely than not, a year from now, as the 2004 presidential campaign is underway, plans for the next war, perhaps against Iran – assuming North Korea has already been dealt with – are likely to be prominent in the news. A principled stand today against unprovoked aggression would be a more effective way to struggle against such a future.
Power and Leadership: The Real Meaning of Iraq
he debate over Iraq has exhausted everybody. Many people now think an American invasion is inevitable; many more are desperate just to get whatever happens over. There's nothing less satisfying than calling for still more discussion.