Dear Editor,

I have not written much during the conquest of Iraq by G.W. Bush. Now that it has been successful, the so-called patriots are cheering for more. Now we are watching the media shape up the “American mind” for a conquest of N. Korea. Channel 9 had a special program “Kim’s Nuclear Gamble,” on Wednesday night 4/10/03. The Persian Gulf and N. Korea was on the Bushian agenda and part of the military strategy of old man Bush and written in 1995, well before the “terrorist attacks” of September 11, 2001. The following is recorded by Zalmay Khalilzad, of the present Bush cabinet and the RAND Project Air Force, in his book From Containment to Global Leadership? America & the World After the Cold War:

“Military strength should be measured not just in terms of other countries, but in terms of the U.S. Ability to carry out the strategy outlined here. The danger that military capability could be cut to below this level is real: historically, the United States has made this error on several occasions by excessive downsizing. It faces the same danger again for the longer term. Already there is a serious question as to whether the United States will indeed have the necessary force structure to fight and win two major regional wars (Korea and the Persian Gulf) nearly simultaneously- the core requirement of current military strategy.”

Another glaring observation can be made about the Iraqi conquest. There was no revolutionary government seeking liberty from a despot when G.W. Bush attacked. This is evident by the lack of leadership at the beginning of the occupation by Bushian troops. (I obviously call them Bushian because there was no declaration of war against Iraq making the “Operation Iraqi Freedom” an act not approved by the citizens of the now dissolved United States.) Had there been a call from an intelligent movement for “Iraqi Freedom,” they would have met the Bushian troops and joined forces and took the role of leadership immediately upon the removal of Sadam Hussein. This was the case in the American Revolution, the French, aided the patriots in removing King George from our shores and we took charge immediately.

In Iraq “our” friends are mere looters and criminals. “We” are now going to shape a new government from looters to run the new Iraq. This won’t be hard to do. It’s some what like putting some of the inmates in charge of the other inmates.

McCain is saying tonight that Kim is going to blow us up with a nuclear bomb. Therefore we get to go conquer North Korea. Can we really get away with just calling any body a “terrorist” and attack them? Because a nation has a mere potential to do us harm, does that constitute a right for us to attack them? Is not the potential to do us harm the same as the sovereign right of a nation to defend themselves? We certainly have the power to do other nations harm, is that therefore their right to attack us?


Ronald F. Avery