JIM WALLIS, in arguing for disarming Iraq without war ("Disarm Iraq... Without War," November-December 2002), says, "But the incentive should be a gradual lifting of sanctions and a pledge of no military attack if Iraq really cooperates."
The question Wallis fails to answer is, "What happens if Iraq doesn't cooperate?" The logic that seems to escape Wallis and many who espouse similar views is this: A pledge of no military attack in exchange for cooperation is absolutely worthless unless you are genuinely ready and willing to attack in response to non-cooperation.
What do you say, Jim? If Iraq fails to cooperate (as it has done for 10 years), then what?
Port Orchard, Washington