Issues / War & Peace
Neither logic nor legality premit the Iraqi "coalition" to enforce UN Security Council decisions. And yet, they feel a need to do just that.
During the past two years our government has taken us resolutely on a march in the opposite direction.
We can do all the things that need to be done within the defense budget without increasing spending, thus relieving pressure on other federal initiatives, provided that we are willing to make the necessary choices.
It was only in the 1990s that Qaddafi began to change his ways. A combination of bilateral U.S. sanctions, quiet diplomacy, and a multilateral UN sanctions regime played a major role in the shift in Libyan foreign policy.
The cacophony of the coming war threatens to drown out any reflective debate on President Bush's budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2004.
For weeks, the Bush administration has claimed it has many partners in its anti-Iraq "coalition of the willing."
Bush administration seemed unduly impatient with the delay caused by the need for additional UN Security Council (UNSC) debate.
As long as Iraq cooperates with the inspectors and complies with their requirements, it seems wrong-headed to launch a war whose ostensible objective is the same as the inspectors': to disarm Iraq.
Afghanistan and Iraq, wracked by decades of conflict and deprivation, require intensive, long-term, and durable commitments of international support.
Before the American public starts applauding the administration's newfound commitment to assembling an international coalition to attack Iraq, it should put the partners' participation in perspective.