Tried your e-mail since this is only mildly related to this topic, but mail was returned from comments@deanesmay.com and dean@deanesmay.com.

I was wondering if you would care to comment on the following article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021001/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_bioweapons_5

Granted, if Iraq had not received materials from us, they would have received them from somebody else. I would like to see the administration take some responsibility, however, for empowering Hussein during their war with Iran. There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, perhaps even nuclear weapons. A pre-emptive strike, in my opinion, would force Saddam’s hand, encouraging him to use his weapons or risk losing them. And use them, he will. Is this an acceptable risk to take? Will the lives lost now save future lives? I hope so, because apparently this is the course our leaders have chosen to take. We must insure that we FINISH the job this time, by not only deposing Hussein, but helping to arrange a post-Saddam government. Hopefully, this too will be done in a multi-lateral way, without making the US appear to be telling the world how things should be.

And the US must hold to its course. With estimates of 9 billion per month, 100-200 billion total including ramping up and down, the cost of the war will be immense and a drain on our economy. But, if we go in, let’s not withdraw prematurely because of financial concerns. Stay until Saddam is removed (imprisoned, exiled, killed, take your pick). Search all of the places we have not been able to search. Destroy his weapons. Provide support for an interim government. And then leave. This interim government must understand that security is theirs to make, and the final government theirs to set up. That’s why it is so important to make this a multilateral effort. By taking such a prominent role in Afghanistan’s restructuring, we have made ourselves a scapegoat for any possible lapses in security or failures in their government. Hamid Karzai stated in an interview (20/20 I believe, I only caught part of it) that as long as Afghanistan does not have security, the War on Terror can not be won. Seems to me he was placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the US to police his country, and this is NOT something we can do for each terrorist regime we plan on taking out.

I definitely do not think war is the best idea, but I am willing to throw my support behind our forces if necessary. Thanks.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021001.asp#5

I'm not sure why your mail would have bounced, Brian, as those email addresses are both working--I just checked.

Anyway, I mostly agree with you. My only quibble is that I don't see why this administration should "answer for" things done during the Reagan administration--not in the political sense, anyway. Finding out how this happened seems like a good idea. Why would the Centers for Disease Control have shipped something like this over there? Let's be clear: the DoD and CIA couldn't order CDC to do that. So who at the CDC did it, and why exactly?

But this does bring up a second poing I"ve been wanting to make, and it will probably be a longer article I'll write one day soon. It is far too easy to look back and say, "If we hadn't supported this guy here, we wouldn't be where we are today," as if that's overriding proof of some larger point. The best example are those who suggest that somehow previous Administrations are responsible for 9/11 because back during the 1980s, Osama bin Laden got training and support for us when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. The world just isn't that simple, and no one can foresee the future. In a world full of dangerous, crazy people, if you're going to play at all, you've got to go in knowing there will be unanticipated consequences, and that the thugs you make common cause with today may be thugs you have to fight later.

Unless you're going to withdraw and become a military isolationist, you have to know this is going to happen.

I confess to often having the military isolationist urge. I'd never be an isolationist on trade, but on military affairs, in my heart I wish we could be one. I'm just not sure it's practical anymore. It would take at least a decade of maneuvering to get it done without destroying countless millions of lives.

Dean