Pro to the question "Should the US Have Attacked Iraq?"
"The full range of reasonable legal, diplomatic and other alternatives has been exhausted. All conceivable forms of leverage have been employed: sanctions; embargoes; massive military buildups to threaten him into compliance; limited military operations in the form of air and cruise missile strikes; the encouragement of internal opposition; positive inducement through the 'oil for peace' program; and diplomacy in all forms -- unilateral, multilateral, private, public, direct and through intermediaries. Nothing has worked. Any further steps will only provide him with more time and heighten the danger.
Self-defense is a valid basis for preemptive action. The evidence is clear that Hussein continues to amass weapons of mass destruction. He has also demonstrated a willingness to use them against internal as well as external targets. By now, the risks of inaction clearly outweigh the risks of action. If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense."
Experts PhD's, JD's (lawyers), Judges, Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Consulate Generals, heads of government, Cabinet-level positions, military generals/admirals, Chief Weapons Inspectors, members of legislative bodies with significant involvement in, or related to, the US - Iraq conflict. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Professor of International Econommics, Graduate School of Business Stanford University, (Emeritus since 1991), 1989-present
Senior Council, Bechtel Group of Companies
US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, 1982-1989
Recipient, Eisenhower Medal for Leadership, 2001
Recipient, Seoul Peace Prize, 1992
Recipient, Presidential Medal of Freedom, 1989
PhD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), 1942