Delay of invasion could bring support

I am, first and foremost, an American. Then, I'm a conservative. And finally, in the political arena, I am a Republican. Yet I too have reservations over the impending war in Iraq and, more importantly, I am beginning to question the imminent timing of that confrontation.

I am not among those who feel the United States must have the United Nations' approval to wage war against a tyrant and dictator. Allowing the United Nations to speak is more of a courtesy than a prerequisite, in my mind. But at the same time I can't help but wonder why we have imposed a strict timeframe on Iraq when we've known for the past 12 years that they are lying and hiding weapons of mass destruction. If we've know it that long then how can another month be out of the question?

Here's an irony in this entire messy ordeal. If we attack Iraq next week as proposed, we'll finally learn if indeed they possess weapons of mass destruction. But what a price to pay to prove to the world we were right in the first place. If another month gives us ample time to generate additional international support, then give it a month.

I accept all of the arguments made by our administration on why we must act and must act soon. But in the court of public opinion, another month might go a long way toward pushing support our way. Of course I am not in a position to know what another month of preparation would do for the forces of Iraq. Maybe that's a price we're unwilling to pay.

If we could get the Russians and the Chinese to support military action after another month of inspections, then I would think the wait would be worthwhile. To hell with France and Germany and their anti-American position. We'll surely deal with them in time. But the other nations of the world who possess nuclear capabilities need to be part of this action if only by their lukewarm support. Right now we have their strong opposition. If time - albeit very short time - can change those attitudes, then we need to have time work for us and not against us.

I know of the arguments about the weather and other ingredients that make our actions in Iraq important sooner than later. And if those in charge perceive tremendous advantage in acting now, so be it. But, and it's a big but, if another month is not that critical and if our victory will still be as swift and decisive, then would not time benefit our efforts to generate additional international support?

The mistake we cannot make in Iraq is to do a half-hearted job. We must prove to all concerned that our actions were designed for just what we have said. That job would obviously be made easier with additional support from the international community. Imposing deadlines against the strong objections of so many other nations is acceptable on the one hand and foolhardy on the other. As always, it's all about timing.

As an American, I support the war against Iraq. I may however have some disagreement with the intended timing. But regardless, when (not if) actions commence in Iraq, watch closely those who support our actions and those who do not. Objections will come from outside and within this great nation. We must always remember those who held those positions. And knowing the difference between supporters and opponents is an important position.