Chat on Iraq

[William Scott Pollard <wspollard@mail.utexas.edu>]

To whom it may Concern:

I am very glad Pr. Henry brought up the topic of Preemptive Strike in class 
today.  I do not believe that enough of our population, including me, really 
grasps what this doctrine could lead to.  I have read some of the other chats 
of the class, I will not even commit on “ I am Sad” except that you make me 
very sad and that in the next debate I hope you could enrich us backward, CNN 
watching, NY times regurgitating westerners with your much more traveled and 
thus cultured insights.  Why put it to waste?  However in the others, and in 
much of the news, there is little talk of the whole notion of Preemptive Strike.
	Somebody sent this in as arguments against the so-called “LEFT”: 	

If We Preemptively Attack Iraq -- Everyone Will Do It!: The United States 
could be setting a dangerous precedent here since no other nation has ever 
attacked another nation "preemptively." Wait a second, if that was true, 
shouldn't we always be at peace since no nation has ever attacked another 
nation except in self-defense? So that's Bush's evil plan, to spoil world 
peace!

	Yes this is kind of funny, however all it says is that nations, as well 
as America, have attacked others; therefore, that justifies the U.S. in a 
Preemptive Strike against Iraq.  I learned this lesson in preschool “ Two 
wrongs, do not make a right!”  I agree with the class mate who wrote that 
Americas foreign policy is viewed by some, more or less, as  "Do as I say, not 
as I do?"  What if other nations took up the notion of Preemptive attack?  
Should India in the name of national security attack Pakistan or visa versa.  
This works for many Nations, if they were to word it right, to justify attacks 
in the name of security.  One might go as far to say we should Preemptively 
strike China, for they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction and do not 
always see I to I with the U.S. policy.  Where does it end, yes I am speaking 
hypothetically and maybe I have left out key issues, but we should definitely 
consider the possibly effects of a Preemptive strike home and abroad.
	The key difference between today and of the Desert Storm war is that 
the U.S. entered the war with the Coalition of other nations to liberate Kuwait 
because Saddam Hussein had taken it over (again more or less).  However that is 
far from the case today.  I do not know all, but I am cautious in my opinions 
of Preemptive strike in the name of security, as well as going into a war alone 
and the effects that it might cause in U.S. foreign relations. 

Thanks, 

Scott Pollard