I’m not saying I completely support an attack, but the Bush Administration does have a case for not referring to any attack as a preemptive strike. I mean, think about it here. Iraq had been violating sanctions and embargos placed upon them since the end of the Gulf War in the early 90s. They have refused to allow proper inspections, they have violated the no-fly zones, they have placed military armaments into positions which threatened our planes in the region, they have violated trade embargos and failed to distribute food to the people as agreed through the oil for food programs.
In short, Saddam has not held up his end of the deal to end the Gulf War. And if he has not followed through on his end, then, technically, the war is not over.
Any attack the United States makes against Iraq can be termed as an enforcement of the agreement, or, better still, a humanitarian mission for the sake of the Iraqi people. We have ample evidence of Saddam harming his own people through everything from testing of military weapons to witholding food and money that is supposed to be distributed to the Iraqi citizens.
And, really, the United Nations does not have much room to complain in that respect. Then we’d be treating Iraq the same way we treated Somolia. That was a humanitarian mission to help the people that ended up being a manhunt for a warlord that they felt was keeping food and goods from the people. Sure, the Iraqi people aren’t as bad off as Somalian’s, but should we wait until they are?
The Bush Administration has a perfect arguement right here, though, worded a bit differently and supported with evidence the public does not have ready access to. The world community would be better able to agree to an attack if we simply remind them that this is not a matter of preemting, this is simply a matter of enforcing and aiding.