THE NEXT IRAQ

Along the lines of the predictable “If the Iraq war made us safer, why are we in an orange alert?” comes my question: If the Bush administration intends to pursue a policy of pre-emptive attacks, wasn’t Iraq among the worst possible targets it could have chosen?

I asked this question of a couple of friends who backed the war, and their response was incredulity bordering on outrage.

But with the idea that a pre-emptive strike is supposed to pre-empt a strike, when the United States finds another target, how will it go about selling the idea? By selecting Iraq and justifying it internationally with unfounded claims of an imminent chemical, biological and nuclear threat, not to mention terrorist innuendo, hasn’t the United States made its next target much harder to hit?

Assuming the nation keep trying to build coalitions, I predict a great deal of skepticism greeting our envoys and evidence. Hell, building consensus over Iraq was hard enough here, even with the widespread belief Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The next target better be caught finger on trigger of smoking gun, hand in the cookie jar, lipstick on its collar, since skeptics around the world will be pointing to Iraq as an example of prosecutorial excess, if not abuse, in assessing whether to go along.