Whenever I read an article about Iraq, or see a discussion about it on TV, the question asked is whether the U.S. should attack Iraq first.

Well, pardon me for wondering, but didn’t Iraq attack first by invading Kuwait? Since Kuwait is an ally which has asked for our help, aren’t we already in a state of war?

Since the theories of John Locke were used to justify our own Revolutionary War with England, I figured he would be a good authority to investigate while trying to answer these questions.

According to Locke, “whoever uses force without right puts himself in a state of war with those against whom he uses it.” Kuwait has been conquered by Iraq, and the Kuwaitis have asked us to liberate their country.

War is already being prosecuted. I infer therefore that an assault on Hussein by our forces would not be to “attack first” or “start a war,” but to continue a contest in which an ally has been conquered and we are its liberators.

When the media reported the assault on the beaches of Normandy, the news wasn’t “The U.S. attacks Hitler first” or “U.S. starts war with Germany.”

Reporters should get this conflict into proper prospective (sic). I would prefer to belong to a generous country which is willing to use its broad shoulders to help out the little guys, than a selfish one which watches its helpless friends get raped.

Michael J. Murvihill

Political Science/History

Senior