Between the horns
Being between the horns of dilemma is not an enviable position. As a person often challenged and well regarded for more than a half century of comment on public policy, and as a person who has personally experienced war, that's where I find myself.
What should the United States do about Iraq? A decision is needed, at once, and the wrong decision could bring world catastrophe.
The right decision could eliminate future problems with Arab nations, bringing peace.
Let's look at one decision: work for improved diplomatic relations. Perhaps a solution, or at least a compromise, might be found. There also is the possibility that diplomacy would be fruitless, giving time for Iraq to produce atomic weapons and improve the ability for germ warfare. If that happens, the time for diplomacy was wasted and worldwide catastrophe would result.
The alternative is aggressive action, armed conflict with Iraq. That course is not popular, especially since the unpopular experience of Viet Nam. Uncle Sam doesn't enjoy being cast in the role of aggressor. Americans will fight for freedom only when it's threatened.
Those of us who lived during the days leading up to World War II, witnessing appeasement by Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938, and "backing down" to the threat of Hitler, also are the ones who later were given the assignment of rectifying those errors — often with cold steel.
There you have it. We're between the horns of a dilemma. Which horn do we choose?
— BILL MEYER
