Lately, there has been a lot of talk around campus about the possible war with Iraq–as there should be. Many of the conversations center around whether a pre-emptive war is ever justified. Pre-emptive war, it is argued, is like sentencing a man to the death penalty–before ever committing a crime.

The theory of pre-emption, however, does not apply to the situation in Iraq. Hussein has committed myriad transgressions, against his own people and, in particular, against the people of Kuwait in the early 1990s.

After being driven out of Kuwait and back to Baghdad, Hussein signed a surrender agreement to halt the overwhelming American force–an act of mercy on the part of the US. It is now more than a decade and numerous United Nation resolutions later and Hussein still is not complying with the terms to which he agreed.

Making the decision to finally hold Hussein accountable to the world community’s resolutions and the most recent resolution, 1441, is not pre-emption, it is delayed enforcement.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO E-MAIL ME. WHEN WOULD THIS ARTICLE BE RUN?

JONATHAN LANCTON