Following the Senate vote approving the use of force against Saddam Hussein, President Bush expressed his full approval and, at the same time, reaffirmed that "our nation seeks a more just and more peaceful world" (14 Oct 02). I, for my part, find this contradictory.

President Bush has made a sustained case for demonstrating that Iraq is preparing "weapons of mass destruction" and that, furthermore, these weapons might be given to terrorist groups for use against the U.S. Let us allow, for the moment, that the President does have reliable sources that he cannot reveal to us without posing a security risk. Let us further suppose that the President does have the moral assurance that such weapons will be directed against the United States. Then, it must be asked (a) whether Saddam Hussein ought to be punished for crimes against the United States that he has not yet committed. This, it will be remembered, was the fatal flaw that Chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise) unraveled in Minority Report. Furthermore, it must be asked (b) whether a nation seeking "a more just and more peaceful world" is entitled to enjoy a first-strike ambition and then to systematically deny this same option to other countries (such as India and S. Korea) that accuse their neighbors of perfecting "weapons of mass destruction." Finally, it must be asked (c) how many thousands of women, children, and old men must be maimed and killed as part of the "collateral damage" of targeting Saddam.

Let’s be frank! The U.S. military must not only act justly, it must be perceived as having acted justly! Otherwise, Bush’s first-strike ambition will turn our friends into enemies, and the victims of his "dirty war" will line up to swell the ranks of Osama bin Laden. How can God bless America if "peacemakers" are the "children of God"?

Dr. Aaron Rose-Milavec, Piqua, OH USA