One obvious problem with a pre-emptive strike against Soviet Russia under Stalin would have been the USSR's ability to strike back in some manner, perhaps quite substantially.

One obvious problem with a pre-emptive strike against Iraq is that this action might give Hussein motivation to use whatever weapons of mass destruction he might have at his disposal, as former Pres. Clinton has noted.

Saddam is pretty good at hide-and-seek, as we have seen from our failure to destroy his mobile SCUDs during the Gulf War. We blundered badly in our decision to share some intelligence with the Iraqi dictator during the Iran-Iraq War, for this mistake gave Hussein valuable insights on counter-intelligence.

It's difficult, if not impossible to know the true extent of Soviet power in the immediate post-war period, and beyond, because of all the disinformation and propaganda dispensed by both sides during the entire Cold War period. Recall the "bomber gap" and then, the "missile gap" which helped bring JFK to power.

As we've since learned, most of these so-called "gaps" were primarily rhetoric generated by those who stood to profit by the spectre of a Soviet Bogey Man.

War or threat of war are good for the armaments industry and for the warrior class. To put it in simple terms, the arrowsmiths and the archers need a foe to justify their own existence. They also need the support of the mass of ordinary citizens, for it is ultimately the people who approve and pay for the tools of war.

The best way to ensure the support of the people is to convince them they are threatened by an enemy.

To do this sometimes requires creating enemies and then exaggerating their threat. Remember, it is in the interest of the arrowsmiths and archers to do this.

Eisenhower called these people the Military Industrial Complex, and in his Farewell Address, he warned us of their potentially evil influence. Project Northwoods might be taken as one sinister example of the lengths to which the warrior class and its arrowsmiths would go to deceive the American people and stampede them to war.

The lesson here is that the truth may be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies, as Churchill put it.

As the existence of such programs as Project Mockingbird shows, Freedom of the Press may be a casualty of the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. And one should bear in mind former DCI William Colby's swaggering remark claiming CIA control of all well-known media figures.

So the task of finding the truth is obviously a monumental one, exceedingly difficult, but not entirely impossible in my opinion. At least, it is my fervent hope that it is not impossible.

One good approach is that described by A.C. Doyle:

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
--The Beryl Coronet

Since the existence of disinformation is a given, it is critical for us to at least attempt to evaluate the reliability of the information we use to form our opinions, lest we be duped.

In the current struggle, the question remains: who is the enemy? While the identity of the real enemy may remain elusive, I think it is clear enough who the enemy is not, and that is the Iraqi people.

If the administration and/or the various intelligence agencies have a better case against Iraq, such as involvement in domestic terrorism in the United States, I wish they would make it.

sp