April 19, 2003                                                          THE 21^ST  CENTURY POPULIST

“Containing The Damage”
by Don Schellhardt

 Until the war in Iraq began, Andy Rooney of 60 MINUTES had opposed it.   Once it began, however, he said this:   “Now that we’re in it, I want us to win it.”

       I can second Mr. Rooney’s perspective.    Like him, I had opposed the war, but once it started I felt bound to root for a swift American victory.    A prolonged war would have meant the loss of many more American lives, and probably of many more Iraqi lives as well, and an outright defeat of American forces would have made Saddam Hussein a figure of almost godlike stature in the Arab world.

       However, having prayed for a swift American victory, I must say this:    America has paid a price for its victory, whether we acknowledge it or not.   The biggest price could be falling prey to the illusion that pre-emptive wars are not all that risky.

       On the positive side of the balance sheet, President Bush and other advocates of the war can point to those cheering crowds in Baghdad :   a result achieved with comparatively low casualties, on both sides, and comparatively limited “collateral damage”.     Further, whether they were motivated by fear of the United States or distaste for Saddam Hussein, or a combination of the two, all of the governments in the Arab world chose to refrain from fighting alongside the Hussein regime.   We managed to avoid, at least for now, the nightmare of a “Christian vs. Muslim war”.

       The pre-empters in Washington may be able to claim some less direct benefits

as well.    Since Baghdad fell, a former President of Iran has urged his country to pursue “normalized relations” with the United States    --   and North Korea has stated it may bow to the Bush Administration’s demand for multi-lateral nuclear  negotiations, instead of insisting on one-on-one talks with the United States .

       On the other side of the balance sheet, the neutrality of Arab governments in the recent war has overshadowed the internationalization of the conflict “on the Arab street”.    As the war in Iraq drew to a close, individual volunteers had begun to arrive in Iraq from Syria , Libya and Palestine .    Had the war lasted 4 months instead of 4 weeks, friendly Arab governments might have been toppled, and the forces defending Saddam Hussein might have become more Pan-Arab in nature.

       Another price of victory has been a major breach with some key allies, possibly leading to the end of NATO in much of Western Europe .   That, in turn, could leave Europe more exposed to future attacks from  --  ironically enough  --  Arab nations.

       The greatest damage, however, may be two-fold:    (1) the Bush Administration’s sense of “vindication”, which was translated almost immediately into new threats against Syria and others; coupled with  (2) evidence that North Korea , in particular, is taking our threats seriously enough to consider pre-emptive action of its own.

       Could North Korea really hurt the U.S.A. ?   You bet!   See my next column. 

       In The Meantime:    Take a look at my recent OPEN LETTER to Congressional leaders, set forth below.    If you agree with me, please write your own letter to your Senators and your Representative  --  or at least send them a copy of my letter.

----------------------------------------------------

DON  SCHELLHARDT

pioneerpath@hotmail.com

45 Bracewood Road

Waterbury , Connecticut 06706

(203) 757-1790 or (203) 756-7310

  April 18, 2003

 Bill Frist, R-TN, Majority Leader

Thomas Daschle, D-SD, Minority Leader

Ted Stevens, R-AK, President Pro Tempore & Chairman, Appropriations Committee

Robert C. Byrd, D-WV, Ranking Minority Member, Appropriations Committee

United States Senate

Washington , D.C.   20510

Dennis Hastert, R-IL, Speaker

Tom DeLay, R-TX, Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, Minority Leader

C.W. Bill Young, R-FL, Chairman, Appropriations Committee

David R. Obey, D-WI, Ranking Minority Member, Appropriations Committee

United States House of Representatives

Washington , D.C.   20515

 Dear Congressional Leaders:

 I am not a resident of your State or District.    However, I am still represented by you in the sense that I am an American citizen    --    and you hold a post of national leadership.  

In this OPEN LETTER, I challenge you to accept the mantle of leadership on an open issue of literally world-shaking importance:  “the Bush Doctrine” that America has the right, or even the duty, to attack pre-emptively any nation which may be developing Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be used against America and/or its allies.     

The question of whether America should invade Iraq has now been settled, for better or worse, but there is still an opportunity and a necessity for broad-ranging Congressional debate on whether the invasion of Iraq should serve as a precedent for launching or threatening “pre-emptive” strikes against Syria, Iran, North Korea and/or other nations.    Now is the time to debate “the Bush Doctrine”:   while it is still relatively fresh, instead of waiting until it has dried into concrete.    Even if you agree with the President, I urge you to facilitate a robust public discussion.    All Americans will share in the far-reaching

consequences of accepting or rejecting pre-emptive wars   --   and all Americans should be made aware of the potential consequences, good or bad, through lively public debate.  

SECTION ___.    PROHIBITION OF POSSIBLE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PRE-EMPTIVE MILITARY ACTION.    (a)  GENERAL RULE.   Other provisions of law notwithstanding, no Federal funds, derived from any source, shall be used to initiate and/ or assist any pre-emptive military action against Syria, Iran and/or North Korea, and/ or against any other nation, unless such pre-emptive military action has first been explicitly approved by the Membership of the United States Congress.  

(b)   SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.    The general rule, in Section ___ (a), may be waived under the following special circumstances:  

             (I)      DOCUMENTED ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST GROUPS.    The President of the United States has determined, on the basis of a clear preponderance of the publicly available evidence, that Syria, Iran and/or North Korea, and/or any other nation, has indirectly attacked the United States, and/or an ally of the United States, by knowingly providing material assistance to a terrorist group, and/or to another hostile third party, for  action which has resulted, or if successful could have resulted, in catastrophic damage and/or catastrophic loss of life;  

            And/or  

(II)             IMMINENT NUCLEAR ATTACK.   The President of the United States

has determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, that another nation has undertaken documentable military mobilization which indicates a clear  intent to attack the United States, and/or an ally of the United States, with nuclear or thermonuclear weapons, and/or other Weapons of Mass Destruction, within the next twenty four (24) hours.  

(c)    RESPONSES IN KIND.    Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the use of Federal funds for military action to respond in kind to documentable attacks which have been made against the United States, and/or against an ally of the United States, by Syria, Iran and/or North Korea, and/or by any other nation.  

Once again, I remind you that you have freely assumed a position of national leadership.     I urge you to offer this kind of legislative language in a spirit of national leadership.  

Respectfully,  

Don Schellhardt  

CC:    Senators Dodd, D-CT, and Lieberman, D-CT; Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-CT