Robert Blake, professor of English, wrote a column about U.S. military action in Iraq which appeared in the March 30 edition of the Burlington (N.C.) Times-News. The text of that column appears below:
Operation Iraqi Freedom is a Just War
Diversity of opinion and expression undergirds the democratic process, and I welcome the opportunity to offer an alternative view about the war in Iraq to that of Robert Anderson. I want to make it crystal clear that I speak as a private citizen, not as a member of the Elon University faculty. Just as Mr. Anderson finds the analysis of Peter Brown of The Orlando Sentinel unpersuasive, I find that of Mr. Anderson unpersuasive and to some degree unintelligible. The burden of Mr. Anderson’s argument appears to be that this nation has ignored widespread opposition to our actions in Iraq in an arrogant display of our military might. True leadership does not depend on polls and misguided opposition no matter how prevalent it may be. The fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein has had over twelve years to destroy his arsenal of weapons of mass murder, and in defiance of United Nations sanctions and countless resolutions he has not done so. In fact, he has repeatedly lied, delayed, and with almost Machiavellian skill driven a wedge between nations of the Western Alliance. He has reduced the United Nations to a debating society and severely damaged NATO. Our initial objective was to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully. When that did not happen, our objective shifted to removing his regime by whatever means necessary. UN Resolution 1441 gave him a certain date to destroy his weapons of mass destruction or face dire consequences. One should note that this resolution, one in a series of many, was passed unanimously by the Security Council.
The deadline passed. Further protracted diplomatic initiatives proceeded in an effort to avoid war. France, I suspect to protect its economic interests with Iraq, threatened to veto any effort to give Saddam an ultimatum to disarm or else. Reneging on its support of Resolution 1441, France took the position that inspections were working and that Saddam was “contained” as a threat to his neighbors and other nations. Nothing could be more naïve. Inspections in a nation as large as California would probably never discover weapons of mass destruction and what does “containment” mean in a post 9-11 world? We simply cannot take the risk that Saddam Hussein would not supply al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations with chemical or biological materials to do grave harm to the United States, perhaps in ways that could not be traced directly to him.
It should be clear by now that the United States is not acting unilaterally or illegally. We have over forty nations supporting us in a new alliance against Saddam Hussein’s regime, many from eastern Europe “who know far better than we the horrors and death that terror and war can bring to their homeland, who have experienced firsthand the oppression of dictators and the denial of human rights,” to quote Mr. Anderson. A major objective of this war is to liberate the good people of Iraq from a tyranny of evil that defies comprehension. I simply do not understand why those who oppose this war never mention the unimaginable suffering that this sadistic dictator and his thugs have inflicted upon the Iraqi people.
Television coverage has exposed the evil and cowardice of Saddam Hussein and his desperate cronies. I need not give a litany of the war crimes committed by the evil elements of the Iraqi opposition. They will someday face the consequences of their actions just as the Iraqi people will be free. I hope and pray that time is not long in coming. May each of us try in our own way to give comfort and solace to the families of all nations who have lost loved ones in this war and to pray for the safety of our U.S. and allied troops in the days ahead.
Robert G. Blake