truth about whether or not Saddam Hussein sought to buy uranium from
Niger has dominated the news for the past several weeks. Many of those
challenging the administration on this issue are motivated more by politics
than by policy. Some of todays critics were strongly in favor
of going to war against Iraq when doing so appeared politically popular,
but now are chagrined that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.
I am sure
once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly debunked, the
other excuses for going to war will be examined with a great deal of
scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to justify going
to war is now less than convincing.
that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in manufacturing nuclear
weapons was in error.
of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical and biological
weapons did not exist.
liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor have any of
the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the one million pounds of
sarin, mustard, and VX gasses alleged to exist.
has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to the security of any
nation, let alone America.
that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was wrong. Saddam
Hussein's violations the UN resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction
so many errors have occurred? Some say it was incompetence, while others
claim outright deception and lies. Some say it was selective use of
intelligence to promote a particular policy already decided upon. This
debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long time, and since motivations
are subjective and hard to prove, resolving the controversy will be
difficult. However, this should not diminish the importance of sorting
out truth from fiction, errors from malice.
though, I hope gets asked: Why should we use intelligence cited by a
foreign government as justification for going to war? One would think
the billions we spend would produce reliable intelligence-gathering
we lack a coherent foreign policy, we see support for war from different
groups depending on circumstances unrelated to national defense. For
instance, those who strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq.
And those who objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia.
For some, U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the
U.N. is helpful provided it endorses the war they want.
few correctly look to the Constitution and to Congress to sort out the
pros and cons of each conflict, and decide whether or not a declaration
of war is warranted.
fact is that we have lost our way. A legitimate threat to national security
is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the
American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight.
Hopefully, some day this will change.
debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium, as important
as it is, distracts from the much more important strategic issue of
the proper foreign policy in a republic.
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the foreign policy approach
advocated by our Founding Fathers, a policy of nonintervention in the
affairs of other nations. Avoiding entangling alliances and staying
out of the internal affairs of other nations is the policy most conducive
to peace and prosperity. Policing the world and nation building are
not proper for our constitutional republic.