I'm going to hit the war blogging bandwagon here for a second. Admittedly, I've been a little wishy washy on what to do about Iraq. I do think we are totally justified in going to war with them ... they've been playing games with our inspectors, cheating the system and the agreement that was set forth at the end of Gulf War I. I think we should have gone in 5 years ago. However, with the shadow of September 11th hanging over our nation, my hesitation in supporting the war was, shouldn't we be focusing our efforts on the war on terrorism? I've made the determination that I think Iraq is worth our efforts. Even if we cannot prove ties to al Queda, I'm a believer in if al Queda does get a hold of Saddam's weaponry -- and it sounds like they may have already -- there will be no warning shot. Iraq is porous, if not in collusion. We cannot afford that risk. Terrorism aside, I also think we can handle two fronts -- Terrorism and Iraq.
So France, Belgium and Germany, what gives? I understand dissent. I have no problem with that. I think it is vital to world balance. But not supporting NATO backing if Turkey was attacked by Iraq is selfish, stubborn and destructive. This would be the first time in NATO's history that it would not support one of its members if it were attacked. Regardless of what the United States is doing, there is no justification of not supporting Turkey if it were attacked.
Great coverage at the NY Times and I'm sure other blogs -- though I haven't been following this in the blogosphere.
back to our regularly scheduled programing....