Newspaper editorials are boring; I spend little time reading them. But the main editorial in today’s New York Times is worth the effort, because it demands, concisely, an honest debate about the merits of invading Iraq. Its most controversial passage:
“One argument for war often floated by officials ought to be disposed of quickly. Military action against Iraq may be justified, but not in response to the terrorism of Sept. 11 or Al Qaeda. To date there is no reliable evidence that Baghdad had any serious connection to either. The dangers posed by Iraq have more to do with protecting American interests in the Middle East than with warding off fresh terrorist attacks on American cities. Iraq is believed to have secret stores of the kind of biological and chemical weapons that terrorists would love to get their hands on. But so do Russia and other countries. While a future link between Iraq and terrorism cannot be excluded, there appears to be no evidence so far that Baghdad means to share its deadly arsenal with others.”
