The writer, of Iowa City, Iowa, served as a U.S. maritime administrator with responsibilities for Vietnam sealift and was a war Shipping Authority director.
_____
 

Good citizenship demands that every American choose a position on the proposed war on Iraq. In our overcrowded lives, obligations of citizenship tend to slide. This one can't.

Some in the Bush administration advocate that we unilaterally attack a nation that has not attacked us, because President Bush would like "a change in the regime."

Can any country overthrow another nation's regime just to better serve its corporate and other interests? Hitler thought so. Clearly, Bush is no Hitler. But Bush so far has given us the same rationale for our proposed invasion as Hitler provided the Germans for theirs.

Can nations be attacked just because they have "weapons of mass destruction"? If so, watch out. We have more than the rest of the world combined.

Are "pre-emptive wars" legitimate? If so, we have less justification for attacking Iraq than it would have for attacking us: We've announced that we're considering attacking Iraq.

Reverse the roles. What if Iraq wanted "a change in the regime" in the United States? Would you then back Iraq's choice for U.S. president? If not, why should it back our choice for Iraq?

We have often tried to change other nations' regimes: Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Vietnam and, most recently, Afghanistan. The complete list is long. We sometimes use our military, sometimes encourage coups by people of other countries, sometimes funnel money and arms through third countries or use a clandestine CIA.

Whatever means we choose, regime changes aren't easy. Our man in Kabul, with our military's support, never controlled much of Afghanistan beyond the capital. Now he's under attack even there. Why would our man in Baghdad have it easier?

Moreover, precedent doesn't make it right. Such aggression is not only immoral; it also violates international law.

Finally, it's "un-American." Hitler invaded Poland. But he didn't pretend to be a cheerleader for democracy. We do. Have we abandoned that role? If not, promoting our interests by overturning regimes in other countries is both the rankest hypocrisy and self-defeating.

And consider the pragmatic reasons it wouldn't work - why it would further anger our enemies, alienate our allies and decrease rather than increase our "homeland security."

Merely proposing war has already done that.

Could that be why the State Department, CIA, U.S. Army and the Republican House majority leader, Dick Armey, oppose the war?

An unprovoked big Iraq attack, over near-unanimous Muslim nations' opposition, isn't likely to decrease terrorists' hostility.

One consequence of the president's father's leaving Saddam in office was maintenance of a balance of power in the Middle East. Why would we now want a dominant Saudi Arabia - the source of the Sept. 11 terrorists and much of their financing?

Another practical downside is that 250,000 soldiers need to be based somewhere in the region. Right now, most all the bases we've formerly used are being denied us for this war.

We have no articulated plan for getting into Iraq or getting out; no knowledge of why we would be there, of what we would do once there or of Saddam's probable countermoves (here as well as there); no definition of "win," what we'd do if we did win or how long we would stay. What would it cost in our soldiers' blood, taxpayers' treasure and Iraqi civilian casualties? And why would a "new regime" be better?

All we know for certain is that it will add more multibillion-dollar debt to our already weakened economy, increase the burden we're bequeathing our grandchildren and possibly improve the Republicans' odds in November.

You may disagree. Whatever your analysis, this is one time you must let your elected officials hear from you.

_____

Johnson was an FCC commissioner and ran for the U.S. Senate and House from Iowa. He currently teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law.
 

Note: The Omaha World-HeraldOnline Edition "Comments" is an immediate feedback feature for responses from readers about a column. Here are the comments received by the evening of August 17 that were inspired by the column. As you'll see, readers use pen, rather than their real, names. It also has a letters-to-the-editor section in the print edition it calls "Pulse."

Demosthenes wrote:

Thanks Nicholas.  I pray every day that for the good of all humanity the Bush administration isn't really serious when they talk about invading Iraq - or if they are that they will come to their senses.

kd wrote:

Let this burden fall on the 'UN,' that way the US is not going to be held responsible.  Saddam has to go, but the 'UN' should be getting rid of him.  One thing, is that a war could help a struggling economy.

Thank You wrote:

It is good to hear someone knowledgeable speak out on the subject.  I cannot believe after the hard learned experience in Viet Nam we would once again try to tell another country who should rule it.  If we set ourselves up as the final authority on such subjects we are only inviting further resentment by the countries in the Mid East, a "justification" of sorts for the terrorists to continue their atrocities, and loss of allies who will support this radical position.

REALIST wrote:

Demosthenes -- keep praying then.  But what's this about the administration coming to its senses.  The ploy all along in my jusdgment has been that the administration has been trying to play this game by getting the public to steamroll the Congress --- that is if the Congress ever wakes  up to the game.  But I support the writer --- the public should hold their Congress' feet to the fire.  Bush - he's a kid trying to play Reagan's game --- but Reagan was a pro.

Rasselas wrote:

Nice job implanting the idea that Bush is like Hitler, and then quickly adding the caveat that Bush is no Hitler.  Maybe just a Freudian slip on the writer's part.  Funny though, I don't recall any speeches by GWB where Iraq is compared to the Sudetenland, where it is made to seem a lost province of the Greater American Expansive Empire.  Funny thing this.

John wrote:

Let's see, GW wants to invade Iraq to remove a mass murderer that gasses and poisons his own people, and would like to do it to us and Isreal also, and this makes GW a Hitler.

Using the Hitler analogy, maybe if the US would have been more involved and overthrew his government before they killed millions of people we would have been better off.

This is a crazy article which is really evident since Demosthenes agrees with it

Paco wrote:

The bleeding heart liberals are all coming out now. Afraid of angering the Arabs, eh Nicholas?  Funny, but if I recall that was one of the reasons that Bush Sr. didn't go after Saddam in the gulf war and where did that get us?  We are as hated there today as we were 10 years ago, probably more. The big difference is that a pre-emptive strike will go a lot farther to eliminating a WMD from our adversaries than sitting back and waiting for it to happen...and it will if we don't do something about it. BTW, how much would another terrorist attack cost us?  Is it more or less than the cost of eliminating people who are bent on our destruction?  Sorry, another dumb argument. The point is this...we do have the ability to determine whether or not we allow terrorist regimes to exist. And in today's nuclear age, hesitation could cost us our way of life and that's not acceptable. Remember, totalitarian regimes like Iraq view their citizens as expendable...do we?

S.J. wrote:

Excellent and well-reasoned.

Minnie wrote:

Excellent, hard hitting.  I'll contact my legislator.  What else can we do?

Minnie wrote:

Excellent, balanced, courageous.  I'll contact my representative and senator. Then what?

NJ wrote:

Then what? No magic; just hard, democratic work: read, write, talk, teach, video on community access channels, energize and focus a democratic society. That seems to be having an impact on this issue already, but it needs a continual push from all of us right now.

Kate wrote:

Right on.  Thank you!

L. J. wrote:

Dear John, Is an extremely appropriate heading for this comment. I think that not only is Nicholas' article inciteful and well worded, the Hitler analogy is very appropriate in the context provided. His reference was to the reasoning not to the actions. Hitler's actions were extremely heinous, however, if we act with reasons that are similar that adds us to the comparison. That is not saying that there is not a valid reason for attacking Saddam, just that our motivation is off. I would ask you to reread the article.

Nick as always I applaude your wisdom and courage, thank you for making us think beyond our own back yard.

Something on your mind? Send e-mail to our Editorial Editors today.

Don't wait on Iraq

Conspiracy theories and public- opinion polls aside, Iraq remains a significant threat to the world. Proliferation of nuclear technology to rogue states was once our worst nightmare. If the problem goes a step further and rogue states begin to pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations, the consequences would be enormous.

Saddam Hussein has defied the world's last great superpower by strategically hiding his weapons programs behind a hesitant United Nations and fickle U.S. allies. The United States cannot afford to wait any longer. Europe will never fully support the war on terrorism until its streets are bloodied by an attack on its citizens. The Arab world, so blinded by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will never recognize the dangers of a heavily armed Iraq, and there will be no viable bargaining chip with Saudi Arabia until there are a few hundred million electric cars and trucks humming down U.S. highways.

The time has come. The United States has allowed its Congress to broadcast war plans on CNN, and every passing day is another day closer to a nuclear Iraq. As the world leader, the United States should lead.

Robert N. Joseph, Valentine, Neb.

Deterrence is answer

Nuclear bombs are so dreaded that they have been used only twice in war over the last 57 years. We are forgetting the power of deterrence with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We are not playing our aces. We have at least 2,200 bombs, all paid for and ready to be deployed.

We should be telling Saddam that if he has any nuclear bombs or chemical or biological weapons and uses or distributes them, we will first drop a bomb on the source of the action and three to five more on other locations in the offending country. Iraq would know the price ahead of time. This would include the threat of possible attacks on the United States by bomb-loaded ships, which at this time is the most probable sort of terrorist attack.

The problem with a conventional war against Saddam is that he would probably use his unconventional weapons but we probably couldn't use ours because of the danger to our troops.

Deterrence works, and it would free up billions of dollars that could then be used for health care, prescription drugs and other social needs, thus improving the economy and saving many American lives.

Harold R. Swanson, Glenwood, Iowa

Invasion isn't merited

In response to Phil Wojtalewicz (Aug. 12 Pulse), I don't feel we should invade Iraq without some form of provocation on Iraq's part. We have no right to invade any sovereign nation without provocation. In fact, isn't that exactly what Iraq did to Kuwait, which is what started all of this?

To do so would make us appear to be no better than Iraq. Our elected officials have a duty to U.S. citizens, including the members of our armed services, to ensure that our troops are placed in harm's way only when it is necessary for the safety and security of the United States and our national interests.

The United Nations and our allies have refused to invade Iraq and more strongly enforce the U.N.-imposed restrictions. Why do some people feel that we should freelance without U.N. support and involvement? To directly answer Mr. Wojtalewicz's question, it is the United Nations' call, because U.N.-imposed restrictions and treaties are not being followed. In addition, we are not the world's police force.

Bill Adams, Rogers, Neb.

Public Pulse
Published Friday August 16, 2002

 Get serious on Iraq

The clock is ticking. Just how long can we continue to push the snooze button before we wake up and get serious about removing Saddam Hussein from power? If we're depending upon best-guess estimates and "intelligence" to predict Iraqi acquisition of nuclear weapons, we had better start discussions now on strategies and costs in treasure and lives to contain a nuclear-armed madman.

 As we have seen, the threat of nuclear retaliation didn't deter the USSR from fomenting and supporting "wars of liberation," placing missiles in Cuba, invading Afghanistan or shooting down aircraft. Nor will it deter Saddam from subjugating the Kurds, supporting international terrorism or re-occupying Kuwait (unless we station thousands of troops there, as in Korea). Besides, the result of debris from U.S. or Iraqi nuclear explosions raining down upon Middle East and South Asian population centers would be a nightmare.

We can continue to agonize and beat each other up over how to handle the Saddam problem, but it could all become academic. If we don't get off the dime soon, we had better be ready to endure a festering wound for decades to come.

Charles G. Babcock, Omaha

Good citizenship demands every American choose a position on a major issue: the proposed war on Iraq.

In our overcrowded lives, obligations of citizenship tend to slide. This one can’t.

Some in the Bush Administration advocate we unilaterally attack a nation that has not attacked us, because President Bush would like “a change in the regime.”

Is that OK? Can any country overthrow another nation’s regime just to better serve its corporate and other interests? Hitler thought so. Clearly Bush is no Hitler. But he has, so far, given us the same rationale for our proposed invasion as Hitler provided the Germans for theirs.

Can nations be attacked just because they have “weapons of mass destruction”? If so, watch out. We have more than the rest of the world combined.

Are “pre-emptive wars” legitimate? If so, we have less justification for attacking Iraq than they would have for attacking us (we’ve announced we’re considering attacking them ).

Reverse the roles. What if Iraq wanted “a change in the regime” in the U.S.? The equivalent of 250,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq would be three million Iraqi soldiers here (with 12 times their population).

Would you then back Iraq’s choice for U.S. president? If not, why should they back our choice for Iraq?

We have often tried to change other nations’ regimes: Chile, Cuba, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Vietnam, and now Afghanistan. The complete list is long. We sometimes use our military, sometimes encourage coups by those of other countries, or funnel money and arms through third countries, or use a clandestine CIA.

Whatever means we choose, regime changes aren’t easy. Our man in Kabul, with our military’s support, never controlled much of Afghanistan beyond the capital. Now he’s even under attack there. Why will our man in Baghdad have it easier?

Moreover, precedent doesn’t make it right. Such aggression is not only immoral it also violates international law (admittedly of little concern to Washington).

Finally, it’s “un-American.”

Hitler invaded Poland. But he didn’t pretend to be a cheerleader for democracy. We do.

Have we abandoned that role? If not, promoting our interests by overturning regimes in other countries is both the rankest hypocrisy and self-defeating.

You don’t care that it is illegal, immoral and contrary to our world role? OK, then consider the pragmatic reasons why it won’t work. Why it will further anger our enemies, alienate our allies, and decrease rather than increase our “homeland security.” Merely proposing war has already done that.

Could that be why the State Department, CIA, U.S. Army, and the Republican House majority leader, Dick Armey, oppose the war?

No, an unprovoked big Iraq attack, over near-unanimous Muslim nations’ opposition, isn’t likely to decrease terrorists’ hostility.

The President’s father left Saddam in office for a reason: balance of power in the Middle East. Why do we now want a dominant Saudi Arabia -- the source of the September 11 terrorists and their financing?

Another practical downside is that 250,000 soldiers need to be based somewhere in the region. Right now most all the bases we’ve formerly used are being denied us for this war.

We have no articulated plan for getting into Iraq, or getting out. Knowledge of why we’re there, what we’ll do once we are, or of Saddam’s probable countermoves (here as well as there). The definition of “win,” what we’d do if we did, and how long we’ll stay. What it will cost in our soldiers’ blood, taxpayers’ treasure, and the Iraqi civilian casualties from urban war. Or why the unknown “new regime” will be better.

All we know for certain is that it will add more multi-billion-dollar debt to our already weakened economy, increase the burden we’re bequeathing our grandchildren, and possibly improve the Republicans’ odds in November.

You may disagree. Whatever your analysis, this is one time you must let your elected officials hear from you.

_______________

Nicholas Johnson is the former director of the War Shipping Authority and now teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law. His Web page is at www.nicholasjohnson.org.