Jack Pollock
While President Bush may be scratching his head in wonderment over why the international community isn't jumping on the "Invade Iraq!" bandwagon, the answer is squarely under his nose: It's Not Their Problem. Nevertheless, Bush continues to wave his arms frantically in the air, yelling "C'mon guys! It'll be fun!" like the neighborhood kid nobody likes. And who can blame them for not wanting to join in? If George W. Bush has a problem with Saddam Hussein, then George W. Bush should take care of it. Which is why assassination is the unspoken but obvious solution.

On a daily basis, Bush continues to bang the drum of war with statements like, "Each passing day could be one on which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or someday a nuclear weapon to a terrorist ally" [as if biochemical weapons were sticks of gum]. However, this isn't about advanced weaponry. If it were, he'd be yelling just as stridently about Pakistan and North Korea. This conflict is about revenge, pure and simple. This is about Hussein's attempt to assassinate Bush's pop in 1993 [which has been discounted by some, but let's assume for the moment it's true]. This is about the former Bush administration (as well as Cheney and Powell) and the embarrassment that came with their inability to get the job done right the first time.

Therefore, world leaders are perfectly justified in thinking it's not their problem. The unfortunate fact of the matter is it will soon be everyone's problem. Bush has dug himself a pit so deep, he has no other choice but to march headlong into war. And since he is so unwilling to listen to reason, America and her allies need to start talking his language, and present Bush with an option he can understand. Like assassination.

Bush understands about killing people he doesn't like. God knows he did enough of it via executions while governor of Texas. And though we may not morally approve of this tactic, the assassination of Saddam Hussein should still be presented as a legitimate and quick solution to his concerns. While assassinations are considered gauche by most heads of state, the U.S. has a long, if not proud, history of bumping off those who get in our way.

In 1960, Rafael Trujillo was the dictator of the Dominican Republic and, according to the Eisenhower administration, sympathetic to communists. The White House concocted a plan to "remove" Trujillo and in 1961, he was gunned down by dissidents financed by the CIA. One of our favorite presidents, Kennedy, was especially keen on assassinations. Under his administration, the CIA launched at least eight attempts to murder Castro. All failed--but maybe we should blame the CIA, not the President. While in office, Kennedy also ordered the removal of Iraqi dictator Abdul Karim Qassem with--now get this--"a poison-soaked handkerchief," which has got to be the most darling assassination attempt ever. Very Agatha Christie. (This attempt failed also, but only because Qassem's own countrymen got to him first.)

The list goes on and on, and probably because the government was trying to whack world leaders left and right, in 1981 President Reagan enacted Executive Order 12333, which stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassinations." However, since this is an Executive Order and not a law, Bush could legally tell a small squad of Special Ops soldiers to ignore it. Just this once.

And logically speaking, he should. Why should we attack an entire country for the sins of one man? Why kill thousands (a handful of whom will be American) when one will do? Assassination doesn't require the go-ahead from the UN, the Senate, nor does it need the consensus of public opinion. And while it will certainly anger some countries, assassination is ultimately safer for everyone. Hurling missiles will only make others envious of our stockpile and encourage the growth of their own. A "one-on-one" attack will certainly have less drastic consequences.

Naturally, there are other choices, but do we sincerely believe that Bush will be wooed by hippies waving signs, calling for an end to war? He's too far gone for that kind of peacenik logic, and deep in our hearts, we all know it. By all means we should continue to protest and attempt to steer Bush from his determined stance of mass destruction. But instead of waving a sign requesting "No War in Iraq," mine will speak Bush's language.

"Don't Obliterate--Assassinate."