Need for war in Iraq made clear by history

Dear Editor:

[The] Rev. Mills states that pre-emptive strikes are unjustified ... Should our search planes out of Pearl Harbor have spotted the Japanese naval task force then fast approaching Pearl from the Northwest, there is no doubt whatsoever that we would have launched a pre-emptive strike. In any event, today’s weapons of mass destruction are able to wreak such havoc as to render a policy of “let them hit us first” tantamount to national suicide.

Our actions against Iraq were in no way pre-emptive. They were [in reactions to] flagrant violations of the provisions of the cease-fire that Iraq signed following Operation Desert Storm. ... While yes, Saddam would never have been so foolish as to attempt to directly attack U.S. interests ... he most assuredly would supply to terrorists either weapons of mass destruction or the wherewithal to manufacture them. ...

I don’t believe we should ever act based upon world popular opinion. To do so could prove most dangerous indeed.

To prove the point, one need only look at one world statesman who ... was vilified as being a “war monger,” “ogre” and one whose actions, had he been allowed his way at the time (or so it was claimed), would have resulted in “worldwide war.” The leader was Winston Churchill ... and the man he wanted removed from power was ... Hitler. The world denied the danger ... The resulting scenes of mountains of dead and worldwide destruction remain with a crystal yet awful clarity to this day.

excerpt from a letter by
Todd De Haven
Greeneville, Tenn.

Related stories:
Faithful examine hearts, history in wrestle with war

• War in Iraq stirred strong actions and reactions around the world
• Good reasons for U.S. to lead coalition in war against Iraq
• Chattanooga priest finds ways to support an end to violence
• Sevierville priest among group founding Episcopal Peace Fellowship chapter
• Farragut assistant certain 'war is not the answer'
• War and peace resources on the Web