To the Editor:
Reading Dr. McCollum's arguments ("A Call to Duty," The Dartmouth, Oct. 1) one would think that one should never act unless one knows all the answers. Unfortunately, the questions that are posed are such that they cannot possibly be answered at this point. The evidence, this definitive showing of threat from Iraq, is something that we would need agents in Iraq to obtain. Considering that the United States has steadily moved away from on-the-ground intelligence and considering that Iraq is a dictatorial and very closed society, such information is understandably hard to obtain. Nor will it become significantly easier to obtain anytime in the future.
Even if arms inspectors are allowed to return, who's to say that in the years Saddam has been left alone that he hasn't completed weapons of mass destruction, dug tunnels, hidden the weapons and destroyed the tunnels? Inspectors would never have evidence that the weapons are there, but the threat would be real. To argue that a dictator who had weapons of mass destruction before, who actively recruits Russian nuclear scientists and nuclear related materials, is not a real threat unless specific information is obtained, is to play a game of Russian roulette with millions of lives. In my opinion it is that kind of inaction which would be reckless.
Dr. McCollum further asserts that we must not act until we have a firm plan of what to do once the dictator has been overthrown. However, again this question depends on a number of things that have not yet come to pass. We must know how the war has gone, how many casualties have been suffered, what is the real unrepressed opinion of the Iraqi people towards our being there, who is in a position to lead the Iraqi people and how national and international opinion has actually panned out. Setting up a plan now, knowing that we will likely have to completely change it, would be counterproductive.
Then there is that question of the United Nations and the need to seek its approval. There is a very simple reason why this is proving to be so difficult. Put yourself in the position of most other countries. Fundamentally you are not for war. You know that if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, that you are not the first target. If anything happens it will be the United States that gets hit first. Essentially, you can afford to gamble that he is not a threat because if you are wrong, you are not the one who has to pay. However, we will pay the price and we must be sure to remember that.
Finally, Dr. McCollum tries to fall back on the age-old argument of this being just another case of "wagging the dog." I will be the first to state that I am no fan of Bush. I have no insight into whether this plan is part of some complex political maneuver or not. However, I also believe that this is irrelevant. The threat is real and Saddam's most recent restrictions on the re-admittance of weapons inspectors prove this. Considering that this country's safety is in jeopardy, whether Bush gains politically or not is secondary.
In closing, I would like to tie up one of Dr. McCollum's last points. He asserts that this country will somehow be safer through appeasement because this will somehow help prevent terrorism. However, I would like to point out that simply not attacking Iraq will not make anyone like the United States any better. There are already plenty willing to take up the cause against us. I would also like to ask, how many times have things turned out well from appeasing a ruthless dictator? If we are vulnerable, isn't this all the more reason to make sure that terrorist's access to weapons is as limited as possible?
In answer to Dr. McCollum's question, I for one would be willing to fight to protect my family. For those who still feel that war should not be pursued even if Saddam continues to defy weapons inspectors, I respect your opinion, but I would also ask a question of my own. Are you willing to accept the consequences if you are wrong?
