Why should we attack Iraq? Well, we need the practice if it's going to be our national policy to keep ANY country that's not friendly to us from developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's). We'll eventually need to attack a number of countries during the next few decades. To start with, Iran and North Korea, those other axis-of-evil nations, either have or surely will want to have their own WMD's if for no other reason than self-defense. After all, if we allow only ourselves, England, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel to possess atomic weapons what would happen if one of them wanted to start showing their muscles to a non-WMD nation? Without the ability to counter threaten, any non-WMD country would have no alternative but to surrender. Others that we have designated as supporters of state terrorism, (Syria, Libya, etc), would follow. Additionally, any countries such as Pakistan, which now has atomic weapons, that succumb to a political takeover by parties unfriendly to the U.S., would also have to be neutralized. Most of the remaining countries probably couldn't readily develop an atomic capability and the means to deliver it. But, they all could easily develop biological capability and, as long as we let the Post Office (and UPS and FedEx) operate, delivery is not only easy but also literal in concept. We could be very busy keeping even small nations from developing biological and chemical MWD's. When should we attack? There are several conditions that should be considered here. We will surely need more soldiers than we have under arms now just in case something goes wrong. I think it would be appropriate to attack only after the U.S. has re-established the draft and draftees are integrated into the fighting forces. A fair draft would have no deferments. Anyone between 18 and 26 would be subject to random selection. (Males only if the draftees will all be assigned to combat units) This would give us an army that would be statistically valid from a voter polling point of view. Another condition would relate to establishment of a war tax. If we're willing to put our servicemen in danger, the least we can do is be willing to kick in an additional say 20% income tax surcharge to fund the war. Otherwise, we'll be running national budget deficits forever. Not only will the war itself cost money but we might feel an obligation to pay a hefty combat bonus to those engaging the "enemy". After all, if they're mostly draftees, they're no more volunteers than those hurt or killed on 9/11 and they, or their survivors, should also get huge compensation payments. Finely, any attack should be withheld until the April 15th following the first year when the war tax is in effect. This will give us time to adjust to not only the human but personal financial cost of a national policy of changing regime in any country that tries to develop any WMD. There will also be the continuing cost of maintaining our puppet government and whatever military presence is necessary to be sure no one backslides. We're not too strong on long range planning in this country. We tend to focus on where the action is and want quick, inexpensive solutions to our problems. Perhaps that's why our solution to any one problem often seems to lead into a new and different problem. If this talk about no deferment drafts and semi-permanent income tax surcharges causes some to question the advisability of attacking Iraq, then perhaps there's more to the decision than just agreeing that it's OK to send someone else out to die, at no cost to the sender. |