To the Editor:
An editorial in the September 25th issue of The Dartmouth, titled "A Brief Case for Invading Iraq," was not a well thought-out argument for attacking Iraq. If not for anything else, the piece was flawed in its complete misrepresentation of the back history of the problem.
Mr. Shi stated casually that "when Iraq first kicked out the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspectors in 1999," Hussein's regime was renewing a weapons program. First off, this is a complete distortion of the facts. UNSCOM was not kicked out by the Iraqi's in 1999; on the contrary, the UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq after Richard Butler issued a report saying Iraq was not complying with unfettered inspections that subsequently lead to the 1998 Desert Fox campaign. In other words, Iraq did not kick out UNSCOM in 1999; UNSCOM left in December 1998 ahead of a combined U.S. and British strike.
Secondly, the fact that there is no substantial proof of a renewed Iraqi weapons program (Prime Minister Tony Blair's dossier included no new substantive information) only highlights the trouble with this issue. Does the United States have the legitimate authority to "take out" a foreign leader on mere suspicion simply because it can?
The United Nations Charter, clearly the international framework by which nations should conduct themselves, states specifically that preemption is permissible if there is "clear and present danger" to the safety of a nation. The lack of this "present danger" or on President Bush's part clear embellishment of dated facts only casts a wider shadow over this debate.
In the absence of evidence, and therefore unilateral legitimacy, I can only hope and pray that cooler heads in Washington will first get United Nations approval (thereby securing international approval) before sending this nation to war.
