Moral Implications of a Preventive War

Question: How many terrorist attacks have been averted due to the Bush administration’s threatening posture toward Iraq? Every terrorist organization knows that if it launches a major attack against the U.S., then the ruling party in Iraq will be ousted along with any financial support the terrorists receive from that source. I consider the threatening posture toward Iraq a brilliant strategy on the part of the Bush administration.

William W. Hildreth

Pacific Palisades

*

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s premise that it would be immoral for the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein by force is yet another example of the political left wing’s skewed ideas of morality (Commentary, Aug. 15). We know that Hussein has used chemical/biological weapons at least eight times. We know that he is attempting to get a nuclear bomb. Is it not immoral not to stop him?

John Trommald

Huntington Beach

*

Thank you, Arthur Schlesinger, for telling it like it is. Aside from the deadly, unending morass an Iraqi invasion will get us into, it is clear that a preemptive strike is immoral and that preventive war violates all the precepts that have governed our democracy. We are becoming the rogue nation, with our arrogant assumption that it’s OK to drop our bombs on countries we don’t happen to like. Where’s the outrage, Americans?

Ann Edelman

Los Angeles