The Post-Bulletin's Saturday editorial, "Strategy, not threats to United States, was basis for Iraq invasion," states well the little-known fact that Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary of defense, developed that pre-emptive war "strategy" and sold it to President Bush after the Sept. 11 tragedy.
Your editorial limited the strategy plan to Iraq. Actually, it applies all over the world in rationalizing a series of potential pre-emptive wars. However, your explanation of the issue of this first preemptive war clarifies its origin. It also makes clear the need to discuss and question the strategy in light of the information revealed in the editorial.
Incumbents in Congress and all voters should consider something along these lines: About this whole war issue, which of the following do you most believe now?
a) Pre-emptive wars against terrorism, as in Iraq, are inevitable and will follow elsewhere.
b) Iraq had little to do with terrorism in the United States, but in this case, such a war was justified.
ADVERTISEMENT
c) Iraq weapons of mass destruction did not threaten us enough to justify pre-emptive war.
d) Most of all, this pre-emptive war strategy of the United States must be changed by 2004 elections.
Your editorial spotlighted the real reason we occupy Iraq. The war strategy the Bush administration has bought into leads us down a dangerous path. We must change that!
Harry; Stevens
Austin;
