Death camp at Guantanamo?

BTW, Have you personally made any plans lately? c.i.

an unprovoked attack on another nation pretty well defines a rogue nation.

McGent, YOU'RE the one that's missing all the factual information brought to your attention. I doubt very much you understand the concept of "unprovocked." Did Iraq attack us? No. Did Afghanistan attack us? No.

What Constitutes 'Proper' Provocation in War?
History Suggests the Answer Isn't as Neatly Packaged as We Wish

By Tom Still

MADISON - In criticizing President Bush for ordering U.S. forces to attack Iraq, veteran congressman Gerald Kleczka of Milwaukee spoke for many Americans oppose the war:

"I am deeply troubled that for the first time in history, our country has launched an unprovoked attack on another nation ... To attack a country that has not attacked us erodes our moral authority, and we will forever be viewed as the aggressor."

Democrat Kleczka's words were eloquent, but they are demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history and debatable as a matter of logic. With the country still very much at odds over the war, the notion of an "unprovoked" conflict bears closer examination.

First, let's examine the claim that for "the first time in history," U.S. forces have attacked another nation without provocation. Many historians would argue the United States has more often than not waged war against nations without direct provocation.

The War of 1812, the Spanish-American War in 1898 and perhaps even World War I stand as examples of wars long past that weren't preceded by a direct attack on the United States or its interests. The war in Vietnam, the invasions of Grenada and Panama, the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the air campaigns against the Serbs (1996 and 1999) are more recent examples. The 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, which led to U.S. involvement in World War II, was more the exception than the historic rule.

In fact, the two Balkans campaigns ordered by President Clinton are near-perfect examples of "unprovoked" actions. Serbia had not taken offensive actions outside what were then its own borders. Yet the United States used force in Bosnia and Serbia itself because it objected - primarily on moral grounds - to atrocities committed by Serbian leaders within their own borders. Sound familiar?

Second, what constitutes "provocation"? Had Iraq properly provoked the United States by committing acts so hostile as to invite war? On this point, there's room for reasonable people to disagree. But the argument that Iraq had sufficiently provoked the United States is stronger than opponents of the war care to admit.

Before Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was engaged in a low-level but persistent conflict with a handful of nations - Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Iraq - that supported and in some cases housed and trained anti-American terrorist groups. After the attacks of Sept. 11, which left more than 3,000 unsuspecting Americans dead, a policy of containment was necessarily transformed to a policy of search-and-destroy. The United States could no longer sit back and wait for the next murderous shoe to drop. That meant waging war against al-Qaida, the international terrorist organization headed by Osama bin Laden, and those nations that consistently supported it. Iraq is one such nation.

The evidence linking Iraqi state support directly to al-Qaida and the attack of Sept. 11 is not conclusive but it is persuasive, including an April 2001 meeting between attack mastermind Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi diplomat. The government of Saddam Hussein has paid $25,000 per death to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thus provoking attacks on American allies, on American interests and, sometimes, Americans themselves. Iraq is a prime instigator of unrest in the Middle East.

Finally, Saddam's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction - which he used against Iranians and Kurds within his own borders - are a provocation because it defied the peace agreement that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

"It's a terrible reality," said U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Green Bay, "but after 12 years and 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions, we've finally been forced to take military action to remove the threat Saddam Hussein poses to our national and the world."

There were good reasons to oppose the war against Saddam, starting with the refusal of some long-time U.S. allies to participate. But it would be a mistake to say the war is without provocation or unprecedented in U.S. history.

Still is president of the Wisconsin Technology Council and the former associate editor of the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison.