Dear George:

Do the anti-war protesters only show up when we have a Republican majority? Maybe the media just reports their activities with more enthusiasm simply because Republicans have a sitting President, a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives. Either way, the surge of anti-war demonstrators seems to be out in more force than ever before.

In the fall of 2001, anti-war demonstrators began their latest momentum because of the upcoming military action against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Taliban supported and harbored members of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan while they carried out destructive and deadly attacks around the globe.

While there were (and always will be) some civilian casualties, the extent of such was minimal due to precision bombing, accurate intelligence and the well-trained Special Forces of the U.S. military.

Certainly, if the civilian casualty numbers were greater, these demonstrators would still be howling. It was the Iraqi army that raped women, killed children, and tortured civilians in Kuwait. I don’t recall any demonstrations against Iraq. The U.S. military over the years has proven its proficiency in battle to keep lowering civilian casualty numbers. I don’t think that this pretext ever needs to be an excuse again by anti-war demonstrators.

Another point that anti-war demonstrators can discontinue is this issue of whether or not to fight a unilateral or multilateral war. If one is against unilateral action, I would like to quote President Bush,” … the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others” and I think he is right.

For those in favor of multilateral action, on November 8, 2002 all fifteen members of the U.N. Security council voted in favor of UNSC Resolution 1441, which among other things, states that if Iraq continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution that "it will face serious consequences”. While “serious consequences” can be interpreted in many ways and is a gray area, all 15 members signed, knowing of this gray area and what it could potentially mean.

Americans now know more about the military action in Afghanistan than they did prior to and during it. The reason for that, is that military and political leaders do not always share information on intelligence matters or national security. I believe that right now we Americans are not privy to all information that is available to our leaders. Maybe we need to have some faith in the fact that President Bush knows what is currently in the best interest in the peace and defense of our nation.

Since September of 2002, President Bush has restrained America’s armed forces. We have not committed ourselves to war. We have only increased our presence in the region; flexed our muscle – if you will. This is the language that Saddam Hussein understands. When he has hearing loss more aggressive action is required.

Why then is there such adamant opposition by Americans to our current action in the Iraqi arena? We have not even begun a war! The anti-war people say that we should let the U.N. inspectors do their job. Give the inspections a chance. Newsflash: We are letting the inspectors do their job and we are giving the inspections a chance. We have also been doing this for the last ten years.

Where was this opposition on December 16, 1998 and afterwards when President Clinton announced that we had attacked Iraq? No military build-up, a few chances to comply with the U.N., which Saddam Hussein ignored and Clinton finally unleashed the military. Americans learned of our military action against Iraq ex post facto.

While I don’t want to put President Clinton’s entire speech here I do want to give some excerpts that I find to have been ignored, but still relate to our current situation with Saddam Hussein ONCE AGAIN:

“…Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

“…The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.”

“…When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate. I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.”

“…Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection. So Iraq has abused its final chance.”

“…First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years. Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.”

- President Bill Clinton, 12/16/1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

I think that Americans must have faith in President Bush, his advisors and the military. We don’t know all that they know and we should give them chance, just as we give Saddam Hussein a chance.

Will Lyster (electronic mail, January 30, 2003)