A couple of things we may have to think of when it comes to deciding whether or not to strike at Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

He is a resourceful person. We don’t know what he has in the way of weapons of mass destruction, or the means to deliver them. The years without inspectors has given him time to create, and hide, a lot. We need to go through the motions of trying to get inspectors into Iraq to find out, but not be surprised if they find nothing.

We don’t seem to have solid support from the surrounding Arab nations for our published goal of a forceful toppling of Saddam Hussein. They seem to agree he is not a good person, but they don’t agree our proposed solution is the right one for the area. Without that support, we would have difficulty mounting any coup on our own. And, as a resourceful person, Saddam may well be sitting back waiting for us to make the first move so he can retaliate with whatever he’s got and claim self-defense, which would make major propaganda points in a lot of nations not only in the Middle East, but elsewhere in the world. And, just in case he does have access to intercontinental missiles, how many of our cities might be targeted?

Third, we prize our sovereignty. We fiercely defend our right to determine our own course. However, in invading Iraq we would be abridging the sovereignty of another nation. In world politics, this would result in negative political points; it would reduce our standing as a nation with high ideals. Now, we may have to take the action in order to protect ourselves from a man whose course seems to be to obliterate all who oppose him, whom he apparently considers infidels. But we shouldn’t do it without considering some of these consequences too.

Frank Wicker

Class of 1955

Beloit, Wisc.