John LeBoutillier
Monday, Sept. 23, 2002

Yes, there is.

Team Bush is constantly shifting the reasons for a war.

One day it is 'regime change' in Baghdad.

Then it is because Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Then it is because Iraq harbors terrorists.

The only rationale that could possibly justify a pre-emptive invasion - and the certain shedding of American blood - is if Saddam has WMD and is about to use them against Americans or American interests.

The Presidential decision to order a combat mission is, indeed, certain to result in American soldiers dying. That is a decision that is the single most important any President can make.

The question needs to framed this way: is it worth the lives of our American soldiers to bring about 'regime change'?

My answer: no.

Why not?

Because Saddam minus his WMD is no threat to Americans or American interests.

Here is a simple - and less controversial - plan:

Tonight - or as soon as possible - the United States and England should radically expand the already-ongoing bombing campaign inside Iraq. (Yes, you do realize that we are constantly hitting Iraqi radar facilities every time the Iraqis 'light up' a coalition plane in the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq.)

So, instead of confining these bombing missions to Iraqi violations of the "no-fly" zone rules, we should immediately attack each and every Presidential site - there are 300 of them - and every site where we think Saddam has ever developed, stored or removed WMD.

That probably means over 600 sites in total.

All should be hit at once - and as simultaneously as possible to prevent him from moving WMD materials.

Using Cruise missiles and Stealth bombers this mission can happen with minimal risk to pilots and servicemen.

The result of this attack will be the neutering of Saddam's ability to hit Americans and American interests.

No, it will not bring about 'regime change.' But it really isn't America's business to be picking governments we like or dislike and "changing" them.

Once we begin doing that, there are literally dozens of governments we would want to "change."

But this bombing plan averts a ground invasion certain to result not only in American deaths but also cause Saddam to unleash all his WMD is one final fury.

Why not simply eliminate - or at least greatly reduce - Saddam's WMD?

Sure, he'll still be in power for a while longer. But his ability to threaten us or our allies will be greatly reduced for years to come. And the charade of U.N. inspections won't be necessary as there won't be any sites to inspect!

This 'neutering' plan is far more preferable than an all-out U.S. invasion - and the consequent problems certain to come from the post-war administration of a Moslem country.