President George W. Bush says that he hasn't made up his mind about "any of our policies in regard to Iraq," but he obviously has. To not attack after spending months talking about the need for regime change is inconceivable. Unfortunately, war is not likely to be the simple and certain procedure that he and many others seem to think.

Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of striking Baghdad that are not reasons at all. For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.

Certainly true. But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.

Moreover, the U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq.

Also cited is Baghdad's conquest of Kuwait a dozen years ago. It is a bit late to drag that out as a justification for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. He is far weaker today and has remained firmly contained.

Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. Commission on Iraq, complained to the Senate Foreign Relations that Iraq had violated international law by tossing out arms inspectors. In fact, there are often as many reasons to flout as to obey U.N. rules. Washington shouldn't go to war in some abstract pursuit of "international law."

Slightly more plausible, at least, is the argument that creating a democratic system in Iraq would provide a useful model for the rest of the Mideast. But that presupposes democracy can be easily planted, and that it can survive once the U.S. departs.

Iraq suffers from significant internal stresses. Convenient professions of unity in pursuit of democracy from an opposition once dismissed by Mideast special envoy and retired Gen. Anthony Zinni as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London" offer little comfort and are likely to last no longer than have similar promises in Afghanistan.

Also problematic are Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim resistance to the central government. One defense official told the Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." Wouldn't that be pretty? <

There are external threats as well. Particularly worrisome would be covert and possibly overt action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a decade-long war and which might see intervention against a weakened Iraq as an antidote to serious political unrest at home.

Indeed, the U.S. backed Baghdad in its conflict with Iran and decided not to depose Saddam in 1991, in part out of fear of Iranian aggression throughout the Gulf should Iraq no longer provide a blocking role. Keeping the Iraqi Humpty Dumpty together after a war might not be easy.

Moreover, while Americans might see America's war on Iraq as a war for democracy, most Arabs would likely see it as a war for Washington. If the U.S. deposes Saddam, but leaves in place friendly but despotic regimes elsewhere — such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — few Arabs would take America's democracy rhetoric seriously. Nor should they. Yet to go to war against everyone, including presumably Iran, Syria, and maybe others, would have incalculable consequences.

Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved. All that exists is a disputed meeting, which might not have occurred, in the Czech Republic between hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.

Certainly Saddam shed no tears over the thousands who died on that tragic day, but he has never been known to promote groups which he does not control. In contrast to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is no Muslim fanatic looking forward to his heavenly rewards; moreover, he heads a government and nation against which retaliation is simple.

Probably the best, at least the most fearsome, argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years.

The problem is not just countries like Iran and North Korea, which seem to have or have had serious interest in developing atomic weapons. It is China, which could use them in any conflict with the U.S. over, say, Taiwan. And India, Pakistan, and Russia, which face unpredictable nationalist and theological currents, enjoy governments of varying instability, and offer uncertain security over technical know-how as well as weapons.

Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of Pervez Musharraf is none too steady; Islamabad long supported the Taliban and its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al Qaeda sympathizers. It is easy to imagine nuclear technology falling into terrorist hands.

An Iraqi nuclear capability seems less frightening in comparison. Saddam would not use them against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.

Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to al Qaeda or similarly motivated terrorists? Not likely.

First, it would be extraordinary for Saddam to give up a technology purchased at such a high price. Second, Baghdad would be the immediate suspect and likely target of retaliation should any terrorist deploy nuclear weapons, and Saddam knows this.

Third, Saddam would be risking his own life. Al Qaeda holds secular Arab dictators in contempt and would not be above attempting to destroy them as well as America.

Of course, the world would be a better place without Saddam's dictatorship. But there are a lot of regimes that should, and eventually will, end up in history's dustbin. That's not a good reason to initiate war against a state which poses no direct, ongoing threat.

Especially since war often creates unpredictable consequences. Without domestic opposition military forces to do America's dirty work, Washington will have to bear most of the burden. The task will be more difficult and expensive without European support and Saudi staging grounds.

If Iraq's forces don't quickly crumble, the U.S. might find itself involved in urban conflict that will be costly in human and political terms. If Baghdad possesses any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam will have an incentive to use them — against America, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia — since Washington would be dedicated to his overthrow.

Further, the U.S. would be sloshing gasoline over a combustible political situation in friendly but undemocratic Arab regimes stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Israelis and Palestinians are at war, America continues to fight Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan as the pro-western government teeters on chaos, fundamentalist Muslims rule western Pakistan, and Muslim extremists are active a dozen other countries. Yet the administration wants to invade Iraq. Riots in Egypt, a fundamentalist rising in Pakistan, a spurt of sectarian violence in Indonesia, and who knows what else could pose a high price for any success in Iraq.

War is a serious business. Making war on a country which does not threaten the U.S. is particularly serious. Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are right, and we can only hope they are, war should be a last resort. As House Majority Leader Richard Armey warned, an unprovoked attack "would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."

There's certainly no hurry to go to war. Nothing is different today from September 10, 2001, or any time since Iraq was ousted from Kuwait. Observes Jim Cornette, formerly an expert in biological warfare with the Air Force: "We've bottled [Saddam] up for 11 years, so we're doing okay."

There are times when Washington has no choice but to fight. Iraq is not such a place and now is not such a time.

— Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

I agree with your post. Osama bin Laden recruited the 14 Saudi's because he wanted to drive a wedge between the USA and the Saudi Royal Family. Anyone with half a brain could see this, but we hardly ever see it talked about in the media. The Prince Sultan Airbase is a huge asset in our efforts in keeping the peace in the ME. The Saudi's have a serious problem with the militants they have been educating and appeasing for the last 15 years. So in public they say one thing and in private they say another. It's their way of curbing ressitance and remaining in power.

That does not mean I do not know your type.,

My type? You mean the type who doesn't agree with every word you say. You mean the type that questioned Billy Clinton for attacking Yugoslavia instead of just saying that all Presidents are correct in times of war? That type? Yeah, I guess I'm that type.

But since you know nothing about me, you are just plain full of crap. So stand by your statement,,,, and shove it.

You are absolutely right,Walter Cronkite is/was and will ever be a jerk!!He's worse than a mere jerk,he's a dangerous jerk because he has the power and position to influence people who will be in positions to influence others.

He travels around speaking to University students in the Journalism schools and always gets good coverage in the hometown newspapers where the schools are located.

I do not agree with most of you about going into Iraq but I probably would agree with you on the cast of characters that comprise the list of influential unAmerican,Americans.And just as you responded to my mention of him with a comment about your brother's dating a relative of his,I had responded to Miss Marple's comment about him.You could consider it just a serendipity.

The average age of the posters has gone down and the amount of graphics has gone up.

ROTFLOL! No kidding. I think deport is no older than 10 years old given his "command of the issues." LOL! Well, I haven't found much reason to agree with antiwar libertarians, but I am happy to be on the same side with you on the Iraq issue. I think most principled conservatives and libertarians can agree that war with Iraq is not in our national security interests. The list of respected Gulf War general officers, many of whom are personal heroes of mine, opposing a strategicly stupid invasion of Iraq only continues to grow by the day taking their place alongside many great conservative leaders like Dick Armey, other vets like COL David Hackworth and much of Bush Sr.'s Gulf War Cabinet. In short, we are in good company and history will prove us right. My greatest fear is that we lose thousands of our brave and selfless soldiers to Saddam's CBR attacks and then Bush nukes Baghdad and a couple million innocent Iraqi citizens in response. That is probably the only thing he could do short of sleeping with an intern to prevent me from voting for him for re-election...

I agree with you, for the most part. I voted for W. so that Al Gore would not get into office.

The whole Iraq issue is a gravely serious one, especially since it is a well-known fact that Iran is the real threat to the United States, and not Iraq.

deport is a good person, although we rarely agree on anything. To his credit, he has stayed away from calling everyone he disagrees with 5's and generally stays away from personal attacks.

How about we just lay ONE on you? the middle one. You can do better than this and mostly you do. What's the deal here?

Time's a-wastin', that's the deal. It seems there's a crowd here that either (a) hopes Saddam gets the Bomb soon, or (b) believes Atta met with a senior Iraqi intel muckety-muck to exchange falafel sandwich recipes.

Can't wait to see the body bags come home?

Nope. Ain't gonna wait for Saddam to cap off a nuke in the Nevada desert and announce that there's five more hidden major US cities, and would we be so kind as to (a) give him the Gulf region, (b) start paying $100 a barrel for oil, and (c) help him destroy Israel, and MAYBE he won't cap off one of those nukes for yucks.

Strike him now BEFORE he's a threat, not after he actually BECOMES a threat. I'm sure you never gave Mr. Charles or the NVA time to get their crap organized before opening the ambush.

We got totally rushed into Vietnam with no discussion and no thought as to what would constitute victory (of course there could have been NO victory, as Robert Strange McNamara knew at the time but declined to share... does THAT inspire trust and confidence in your gooberment?) or how we would exit the place or even how long we'd be there... so come on and debate the ISSUES... drop the 5 bs and be the man you used to be.

Fine. Your bitterness is blocking your ability to see the problem in front of you.

Saddam has got to go. NOW. The Freerepublic Saddam fan club is getting a wee bit tiresome.

No, actually it is you who are the CINO, which incidentally is a term which I first coined here on FR a couple of years back to describe people like you. Just because I side with six four star generals and much of the Bush Sr. Gulf War Cabinet not to mention several notable conservative Republican congressman and Senators and other leaders in opposing an imprudent invasion of Iraq does not make me anti-war.

In point of fact, I support an immediate US invasion and liberation of Communist Cuba, immediate re-occupation of the Panama Canal, US bombing and possible invasion of 9-11 terrorist supporting Iran in furtherance of the war on terror and US bombing strikes against North Korea nuclear missile sites (where the President's policy of appeasing Pyongyang with the largest amount of US foreign aid of any country in Asia with the exception of the State of Israel and building nuclear weapon producing reactors is failing badly). Is that anti-war enough for you? I doubt you would support military actions against the countries I named so I guess that makes you the only real anti-war bombast on this thread. LOL!

The whole Iraq issue is a gravely serious one, especially since it is a well-known fact that Iran is the real threat to the United States, and not Iraq.

Hardly. The Iraqi regime needs tobe pushed over the cliff, the Iranian regime is managing to do that all by itself.

In Iran, the times they are a changin'.

Lies.

Whether pilots can carry weapons or not while working isn't really up to the Federal government, it's up to the individual airline.

Puny Defense budget?

Bush presents a $2.1 trillion wartime budget

WASHINGTON (CNN) --President Bush presented Congress with a $2.1 trillion wartime budget Monday that would sharply increase funding for the U.S. military and for homeland security, but would limit spending in other areas and return the federal government to deficit spending.

The president's budget proposal for the 2003 fiscal year, which begins October 1, includes the largest single-year increase for the Pentagon since Ronald Reagan was president.

It would provide $369 billion in military spending as well as a contingency for another $10 billion to pay for the war in Afghanistan.

It also would nearly double spending on homeland security, providing $38 billion for efforts such as border security and funding for local law enforcement.

Hey you ashamed to admit you are posting during working hours while accepting pay from the Federal Government via tax payer money? Yep some honest person you are with the creditibility to go with it. Hey Esq. you still doing other jobs outside your Government employment from the Government office/facility using Government equipment, facilities, time and resources? Any ten year old knows that isn't right nor honest nor Christian.

Your claim to fame, on FR,

I wasn't aware of being famous, but thanks.

is that you post anti-war and Bushbashing threads and then add ... what's YOUR opinion.

This is the first article I have posted in months. It is not anti-war. It is an OP ED piece written by an author who opines that THIS war, as currently proposed, is a mistake. I posted it for thoughtful concideration and explained that in post number one. I have never posted a Bushbashing thread. I post my opinons concerning different leaders on other peoples threads and Bush is not off the list of people I comment on. He is fair game in a free society as are all others. I have supported him and excoriated him at different times on different issues.

We know ( can surmise ) what your opinion is. Most of us don't care for it.

I hope you are better at surmising than you are at summing up who cares for my opinions and who doesn't. Which, by the way, is unimportant to me. I am uninterested in winning popularity contests.

Many people here seem to have an interest in my opinions. Mostly as fuel for personal attacks which substitute for rational discourse. If you really are all that interested, I have posted them on my profile page. They have been there for several years for all to see.

Miss Marple knows Walter is a jerk, I know that he is a jerk, everyone with 3 working brain cells knows he's a jerk. There was NO need for you to bask in reflected glory / make a personal refference to imply special knowledge. That was my sole point, in stating that my brother had long ago dated old Walter's barinless daughter. That was THE point ! I know that he was and still is a jerk, whether my brother dated his child, or not, whether I knew him personally ( which the family did and weren't " impressed " with ) or not. Serendippity my Aunt Fanny ! It was my subtle ( obviously far too subtle, for YOU to " get it " ) way of saying that it doesn't matter and was unnecessary to state personal , secondhand , quasi knowledge of a " famous " person ... to claim that you know he is a jerk .

Gee, big news ... NOT . I know that you don't " agree " with our going into Iraq. For that, you earn a medal of SHAME . Your one voice, added to those of Ed Asner, Jane Fonda, and algore, must be so heartening , for you.

Well deport has been attacking me and taunting me in a very personal way and not just by calling me a "5" either. You can read his attacks against me both on this thread and on the other Iraq thread we have been teaming up on. The man has shown not a sign of decency and is a complete and utter moron. I am glad he has been kinder to you though. Perhaps, he is just deceived and can be reclaimed later once he stops being brainwashed by the America-haters on this forum.

In point of fact, I support an immediate US invasion and liberation of Communist Cuba, immediate re-occupation of the Panama Canal, US bombing and possible invasion of 9-11 terrorist supporting Iran in furtherance of the war on terror and US bombing strikes against North Korea nuclear missile sites (where the President's policy of appeasing Pyongyang with the largest amount of US foreign aid of any country in Asia with the exception of the State of Israel and building nuclear weapon producing reactors is failing badly).

Now we're talking!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.