|
|
|
|
The Second Gulf War -- Pros and Cons
United States President George W. Bush, Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and other world leaders have set out on a course of action designed to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. This is a controversial course of action, setting Russia and the "Old Europe" nations of France, Belgium and Germany directly against the United States, Great Britain, Spain, Japan, Kuwait, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, Portugal, Australia, and 30 or so other nations. Russian and China lean against a US-led invasion of Iraq, but news reports are that they will not veto a UN Security Council resolution expressly authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Many other nations are neutral.
What are the objections to the "Alliance of the Willing's" proposed course of action? Those opposed to an invasion of Iraq base their objections upon many theories, complaints, arguments, and fears. Here are many if not all of those objections, and the responses to them. Some object, saying that "we just need to send in many more inspectors."
There are many other responses to this argument, but this quote is the real bottom line. I will address many of the other responses later on this page, but a very basic first response is: if your child is caught with an illegal drug, and he denies everything, and he then becomes defensive and accusatory, at what point do you actually punish the child for his illegality? Do you just keep hiring baby-sitters ad nauseam to watch over him? At some point you have to lay down the law and "Mean What You Say." In a country as large as Iraq, UN inspectors cannot find what they don’t know is there. We can never be sure they have found everything unless they receive excellent guidance. For example, U.S. intelligence agencies vastly underestimated the number of al Samoud 2 missiles that Iraq had produced, intelligence officials say. Chief United Nations arms inspector Dr. Hans Blix disclosed to the U.N. Security Council in March, 2003, that Iraq had produced at least about 120 al Samoud 2 missiles. These missiles are illegal for Iraq to possess under a 1990s resolution that prohibited Baghdad from producing missiles with ranges greater than 93 miles. The al Samoud 2 has been flight tested to ranges in excess of 93 miles. The results of UN tests conducted by a panel of independent experts led the UN panel to unanimously conclude that al Samoud 2 rocket engines are capable of producing thrust of two, three or four times more than necessary to achieve a range of 93 miles. Regardless of Iraqi protestations, this can not be denied. Before the number of al Samoud 2 missiles was disclosed by Iraq to the UN, The Federalist reports that U.S. intelligence agencies had estimated that Iraq possessed fewer than a dozen al Samoud 2 missiles. These intelligence agencies also reported that Iraq was suspected of having more than two dozen Scud B missiles, missile systems that were purchased from Russia before the development of the new al Samouds. Those intelligence estimates were wrong. We now know from UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix's March 17, 2003, UN Security Council report that these estimates were way off. Iraq has ten times as many al Samoud 2s (they had at least 120 instead of less than 12) and twice as many Scuds as we thought (at least 50 rather than about 24). These numbers may still be way off; Dr. Blix’s numbers are themselves suspect as they are mainly based upon Iraqi disclosures to the UN. The numbers of Scud Bs especially may also be much higher that we know -- U.S. military intelligence believes that some Scud Bs are buried in western Iraq, within striking range of Israel and US forces in Kuwait. See http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030313_strike.html. The point is that inspectors cannot find all of what they don’t even know is there.
Some objectors say "there is always time for war: this should be a time for peace" or "we need more time to let inspectors do their jobs. Give peace a chance!"
Eight and one-half years of inspections is not enough time? How much more time do you need? Hundreds and hundreds of UN inspectors were there for over eight years, and it's simply undisputed that they didn't get the job done. Even Dr. Blix admits that. See http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index4.jhtml. At the opposite side of the debate, Jacques Chirac and
Gerhard Schroeder insist that Iraq is already disarming, and needs more time.
Neither, however, is prepared to say how much time is needed. Like bargain
hunters in an Oriental bazaar, both haggle about months but secretly hope that
Saddam will be in his palace long after George W has left the White House. There is a little-reported fact about this new crop of UN inspectors that ought to be considered. According to the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, unlike the current crop of "geo-politically correct" UNMOVIC inspectors, the UN inspectors in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 had real, hands-on expertise in manufacturing the WMD they were searching for in Iraq. See http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/031603/usn_bigreport.shtml ('The new experts who arrived in November are far less experienced in the ways of chemical warfare than their predecessors.'). The current UN inspection scheme is simply not as good as that run by the inspectors Iraqi President Hussein expelled in 1998. The earlier inspectors were getting too good, too close to finding all the WMD. That's why they were expelled. And the UN simply did nothing effective to counter that expulsion. Furthermore, there are serious questions about whether Dr. Blix can even be trusted to conduct the most effective search, or even an effective search, for the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam is determined to hide. These questions and concerns are being raised by sources ranging from Per Ahlmark, a former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden who has known Dr. Blix for over 40 years, to others who are familiar with his work as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Their concerns arise from Dr. Blix's participation in the U.N.'s ineffective search for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War. See http://www.aim.org/publications/weekly_column/2003/03/13.html.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cfsp-00-f-6.htm (27 January 2000). The best hope of finding everything Saddam has hidden is insider information. There is a lot of controversy about Dr. Blix not taking Iraqi scientists and their families out of Iraq for questioning. But this is a false controversy. Inside Iraq or elsewhere, Iraqi scientists won’t talk to UN inspectors now because they know, as all informed persons know, that the current UN inspection corps is full of Iraqi sympathizers who constantly leak information disclosed by the scientists and others back to Saddam's agents. The scientists know that if they talk it will surely result in the deaths of themselves and their families. Further, even thousands of inspectors in a country the size of California, where the government is not willing to help, simply will never work. President Saddam Hussein has had five years -- from 1998 to 2003 -- to hide his weapons too well. After all, even in California and Texas, states the size of Iraq, and even with the active help of local, state and national governments, we still cannot find all the drug labs out there producing poisons. Think about that! If we cannot achieve that goal here, then how could we ever achieve disarmament within Iraq? The US has been reasonable in trying to enforce the UN’s disarmament mandate. The first Gulf War's 1991 cease-fire agreement, which President Saddam Hussein agreed to and which his generals signed, expressly required Iraq to disclose and disarm within 15 days. However, negotiating any viable agreement first requires a "meeting of the minds" and both parties coming to the table with "clean hands," intending to enter into a contract for mutual benefit and advantage. History has proven abundantly that we cannot trust President Hussein; he is a proven liar. Giving up his WMDs is not to his advantage, so it has been and will continue to be impossible to work with him to do it by agreement or inspections. UN Resolution 1441 realized that, which is why it requires President Saddam Hussein to present the UN with all of his weapons or verifiable proof of their destruction -- it does not require the inspectors to go search and try to find them. The nations on UN Security Council knew that the inspectors would not find everything, simply because they can not. Even Dr. Blix admits this. See http://www.mtv.com/bands/i/iraq/news_feature_031203/index4.jhtml. And nobody, not the French, the Germans, Russian, China, Mohamed El Baradei, or anyone else, argues that President Hussein has in fact made all of the mandatory disclosures and disarmament required by 1441. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reminded us of the objective of a unified allied stance toward Iraq: "The goal is to not have a war. The goal is to have the pressure be so great that Saddam Hussein cooperates. Short of that ... the goal is to have the capabilities of the coalition so clear and so obvious that there is an enormous disincentive for the Iraqi military to fight against the coalition." Again, President Hussein has "thumbed his nose" at the entire world and is hiding his WMD. He has them. In fact, he has publicly threatened to use them against us (and even his own people) if we invade! See http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030312-32976.htm; http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12265723,00.html. How can you use what you claim you don't have? Can the West really afford to let him continue to do this? UN video cameras and on-site UN inspectors were utilized in North Korea. We waited for Kim Jong Il and N. Korea to get "in line" and give up their nuclear ambitions. Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter even bribed them with billions in aid to honor that nuclear non-proliferation agreement. What did that course of action get us? North Korean nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles right up in our face! The South Korean press has reported that a North Korean missile fragment was found in Alaska. Kim Jong Il is targeting the USA, and apparently N. Korea can hit its targets. Well, the US is a target of N. Korea and Iraq. Do we really want to attempt a Neville Chamberlain-like appeasement course of action with Iraq? No rational person thinks so. As said Winston Churchill: "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war." Opponents of disarmament have transformed Dr. Blix's
mission from "verification" into "inspection." "Let the
inspectors do their work" is the slogan for the don't-touch-Saddam lobby.
But when it comes to deciding what is it that the Blix team is supposed to do,
there is no clear answer. At times, the Swede is presented as a detective
looking for a "smoking gun." At other times, he is looked upon as a
lawyer interpreting the pronouncements of Amer al-Saadi (the Iraqi general in
charge of making Dr. Blix dance to Saddam's tune). And at other times, Blix is
cast in the role of judge and jury and pressed to decide matters that the
Security Council members lack the courage to decide. Blix, of course, is not
playing the game: He will never say "yes" or " no" to the
crucial question of whether or not Saddam will disarm.
For those of you who do not know the history, then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain chose a course of action of appeasement of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany in a vain attempt to achieve peace in his time. Chamberlain failed; the result was WWII and millions of deaths. The French government at great expense built the Maginot line to deter Germany and protect France from Nazi invasion. Ha! What a joke! The French Maginot line was built after WWI. Designed to protect France from another German attack, it covered the French-German border from Luxembourg to Switzerland – not at all useful against an attack through neutral Belgium. The British and French fully anticipated a German attack through Belgium, as Germany had done in WWI. The French placed more guns and tanks than the Germans had on the Belgium border, and planned to meet any new German advance by advancing as far as possible into Belgium (fighting on Belgium soil rather than in France). Unfortunately, this plan to fight in Belgium made the German lightening attack all the more effective, as the French and British mobile armies were trapped there leaving only second class troops manning the Maginot fortifications. The French were unprepared for the speed of the German Blitzkrieg. Germany crashed through Belgium, going through the hilly terrain of the Ardennes. The German attack, code-named "Sichelschnitt" (Sickle Stroke), began on 5/10/40. On 5/11/40 the French and British move to their planned positions in Belgium along the River Dyle. On 5/13/40 the German forces cross the River Meuse. One week later, on 5/20/40, German forces reach Abbeville, cutting off the British forces and mobile French armies. On 5/27/40 Belgium surrendered and between 5/27/40 to 6/4/40 British and some French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. Forty-three days after WWII began, France surrendered on 6/22/40. In the 1940s Nazi Germany and the Soviets entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty whereby the Nazis and Russians agreed to a mutual nonaggression pact. That didn't work either; the Nazis invaded Russia shortly after the treaty was signed. Peace at any cost didn’t work then; it won’t work now.
Some argue that "we just need
to give Saddam a set of clear benchmarks to disarm." Many complain about the possible financial cost of war, and question the cost/benefit analysis of engaging in a war. The monetary cost to the US and its allies is not the question. The only relevant economic question is what will the cost be of not removing President Hussein? National Review In March of 2003 the left-of-center Brookings Institution reported that "10,000 people could die in a successful attack on a U.S. chemical or nuclear power plant; a nuclear bomb detonated in a major U.S. city could claim the lives of 100,000 people," and that a biological attack in a single U.S. city could cause $750 billion in economic damage, while chemical attacks in malls or movie theaters could cost the economy $250 billion. The study notes that a successful attack on the shipping industry could cost the economy a $1 trillion hit. Such financial devastation it too high a price for the world to ask America and its allies to pay. Many complain that we should concentrate on North Korea first. We're big boys -- we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The same people who don't want the U.S. to disarm President Saddam Hussein are demanding that President Bush drop everything and disarm Kim Jong Il — right now, if not faster. The Wall Street Journal has a good response:
If not N. Korea, the perhaps Iran may seem a threat that puts together many of the same elements found in Iraq, such as a nightmarish group of leaders, ties with terrorists and the potential for developing nuclear weaponry. A significant difference is a very real protest movement that may topple the regime, and sooner rather than later. Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East expert at Princeton, has written that Saddam's collapse could push the Iranian theocracy to collapse as well. Iran has not lately shown itself particularly determined that the United States meet the prayed-for fate of all infidels. And unlike Iraq, there was not a war 12 years ago that never concluded. Iran is not in violation of 18 U.N. resolutions. Doesn't North Korea pose risks to America as great or greater than those posed by Iraq? Yes. But North Korea, by most estimates, already possesses at least one and maybe two or three or more nuclear weapons. Even without them, it could probably destroy Seoul in South Korea, and with them it also threatens Japan and — conceivably someday if not now — the West Coast of the United States. Part of the objective in Iraq is to keep that country from obtaining nuclear weapons with which it could blackmail the United States, as North Korea seems to be trying to do now. Also, obviously, a war against North Korea would be enormously difficult, many, many times more difficult than a war against Iraq, and it makes sense for the time being, at any rate, for North Korea's neighbors to carry the burden of diplomatic negotiations. There are complaints that "this war will just bring more terrorism," or "Arabs worldwide will erupt against American interests if we do this." This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists should be increasingly fearful and, if they are not, the truth is that we are going to be hit by terrorists whether we go into Iraq, or not. Fear of consequences can not be permitted to freeze our will. We must do what must be done.
The fear that "the Arab street" will erupt is another perennial objection. This is so often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arabs. So far, only the American street has erupted – against the French and Germans. Some suggest that "America doesn't have enough allies to do this." What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Gov. Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone. Forty-plus nations is not alone. Some, like US actor Martin Sheen, complain that "Bush is only doing this for his dad."
Consider the source of this charge! Ha!
Setting Mr. Sheen aside, thankfully, it is a fact that in 2001 Saddam tried to assassinate President George H.W. Bush when he went to Kuwait to help celebrate the 10th anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait via Operation Desert Storm. However, consider the fact that President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the first Gulf War, and to this day he believes that he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Why would Bush the son do what Bush the elder did not do, did not want to do, and still believes was the right thing to do?
Of course, under President Clinton’s watch that disarmament didn’t happen. He dropped the ball, leaving it to President George W. Bush to pick up his mess and deal with it.
Finally, consider the sheer arrogance of Saddam – actually trying to assassinate a former President of the United States of American! Saddam is dangerous, reckless, and must be removed from power. His assassination attempt is just more proof of that fact. And on this subject, an update on all those al-Qa'ida terrorists captured in the last three weeks ... one of the thousands of items in the cache collected from their Pakistan hideout was a detailed 1998 plan to assassinate Pres. Bill Clinton at the Malaysia summit. Inexplicably, Clinton cancelled at the last minute and sent Vice President Albert Gore in his place. Hmmm . . .. Some claim that "President Bush is seeking a new American empire." This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who, as Fred Barnes points out, once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice.
Secretary of State Colin Powell has the answer to this false charge. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject, Powell said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said. Others complain about "this rush to war" by President Bush. There is no rush. That’s a fiction. According to George Will, counting from April 18, 1991, the 15th day after passage of UN Resolution 687, more than 4,330 days have passed since Iraq put itself in material breach of international obligations. Iraq did so by ignoring that UN resolution's 15-day deadline for listing the locations, amounts and types of all its chemical and biological weapons, all 'nuclear weapons-usable' materials, and for disclosing the location of Scud and other ballistic missiles with ranges above 90 miles. So the current 'rush' to war has consumed almost half again as many as all the 3,075 days of U.S. engagement in World Wars I and II and the Korean War. President George W. Bush went to the UN over six months ago, shamed them into putting meaning into their own words, and got some action. But, other than sending in inspectors in a futile effort to find the unfindable, the elusive "smoking gun," the UN has failed to reach the real goal – it has failed after nearly 12 years to secure complete Iraqi disarmament. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, going to the UN over six months ago to get a 17th U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters of over 40 countries. He's hardly rushing. In fact, if Bush had not pushed the disarmament issue, we would not be any closer to closure on this issue than we were in 1998. "I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," said Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37158-2003Mar17.html. Others argue that "Iraq wasn't involved in 9-11!" Yes he was, according to Sabah Khodada. Khodada was a Captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he described as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area 25 km southeast of Baghdad. Khodada emigrated to the U.S.A. in May of 2001. The Washington Post reported on March 11, 2003, that Saddam had opened another special camp run by the Iraqi intelligence service near the town of al-Khalis, 40 miles northeast of Baghdad. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10943-2003Mar11.html. In a translated interview conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001, Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak. He detailed training of hijackers, terrorists, and probable al Qa'ida agents. Khodada stated that these Arab Muslim terrorists would be trained by Iraqi intelligence (the al-Mukhabarat) on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, public buses and trains, and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism such as planting explosives in cities, sabotaging villages, sabotaging houses, etc. The training also included how to prepare for suicidal operations. See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html. On January 1, 1996, Khodada and the terror camp trainees and trainers met with Saddam personally. Saddam told them that they had to take revenge on America: "Our duty is to attack and hit American targets in the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world." Saddam made these statements openly, frankly. Khodada stated that when one volunteered to become Saddam's fighter the Iraqi trainers would tell you the purpose of your volunteering is to attack American targets and American interests, not only in Iraq, not only in the Gulf, but all over the world, including Europe and America. That's how Saddam was able to attract the Saudis, Yemenis, Afghanis, Egyptians, and other Arabic Muslims who came to train, because that's exactly what they too want to do. Khodada said that Saddam expressly and openly stated his goals in the Iraq news media, which is controlled by one of Saddam's sons. Saddam expressly said this to his camp trainees. These goals were stated by the highest Iraqi military command members. And, again, what are these goals? The purpose of establishing Saddam's fighters is to attack American targets and American interests, worldwide. He is actively recruiting terrorists to attack western interests in Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands. Saddam is deadly serious about this. Some of these terrorist groups trained intensively to learn the English language, Persian languages and the Hebrew language, so that they could be sent out to different places of the world to conduct different kinds of terror operations. Khodada stated that he was positive that a higher level of training, or the additional training that selected terrorists underwent in Iraqi training camps, had a lot to do with what happened to New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Khodada said that he was sure that the 9-11 al Qa'ida operation was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam. These camps specialize in exporting terrorism to the whole world. This is known. There's no doubt about it. Al Qa'ida even trained to attack schools and kill and hold hostage our teachers and children! This too is known; we have the videotapes of the training! See http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/70259.htm. We have to stop this, and there is no way to do it other than to go into Iraq and finish the job we started in 1991. "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch," Laurie Mylroie writes at www.opinionjournal.com. "So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000," said Ms. Mylroie, author of "The War Against America." "Why should the Baluch seek to kill Americans? Sunni Muslims, they live in the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan. The U.S. has little to do with them; there is no evident motive for this murderous obsession. The Baluch do, however, have long-standing ties to Iraqi intelligence, reflecting their militant opposition to the Shi'ite regime in Tehran. Wafiq Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence, explains that Iraqi intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war. Mr. Samarrai says Iraqi intelligence has well-established contacts with the Baluch in Iran and Pakistan. "Mohammed, Yousef and Murad — said to have been born and raised in Kuwait — are part of a tight circle. Mohammed is said to be Yousef's maternal uncle; Murad is said to be Yousef's childhood friend. And U.S. authorities have identified as major al Qaeda figures three other Baluch: two brothers of Yousef and a cousin. The official position is thus that a single family is at the center of almost all the major terrorist attacks against U.S. targets since 1993. The existence of intelligence ties between Iraq and the Baluch is scarcely noted. These Baluch terrorists began attacking the United States long before al Qaeda did. "Notably, this Baluch family is from Kuwait. Their identities are based on documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation and are, therefore, unreliable. While in Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence could have tampered with files to create false identities (or "legends") for its agents. So, rather than one family, these terrorists are, quite plausibly, elements of Iraq's Baluch network, given legends by Iraqi intelligence." But, in any event, we're not fighting a war against 9-11! According to the US Congress, this is a war on international terrorism and those states which support it, of which 9-11 was only one large, terrible example. Saddam funds suicide bomber campaigns in Israel, which has been proven. See http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2370657 (Reuters - families of Palestinians killed by Israel received $245,000 in checks from Saddam Hussein on Wednesday, underscoring the Iraqi leader's continued support for a Palestinian revolt). He boasts of funding suicide-homicide bombers in Israel, and publicly calls for such bombers in the USA and Great Britain. Officials of the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front say Saddam has now paid $35 million to support the kin of Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since militants rose up against Israel there 29 months ago. See id. He also funds al Qa'ida-connected terrorists in the Philippine Islands. Do you want to wait for him and his allies to directly strike here first, again? How many more thousands or tens of thousands of Americans have to die before you realize – like it or not – that we're already at war, and that Saddam and bin Laden and their Jihadist allies have already made us their number one target? They struck first, over and over again – beginning with the US Embassy in Iran when Jimmy Carter was President, then at the US Marine barracks in Lebanon when Ronald Regan was President, then at the US Army barracks in Saudi Arabia, at the two US Embassies in Africa, and at the USS Cole in Yemen when Bill Clinton was President, at the Twin Towers in New York City (twice), and the Pentagon. Unlike others before him, President George W. Bush is determined not to turn a blind eye to the dangers we face. US and foreign intelligence sources say that Saddam is permitting al Qa'ida to regroup in northern Iraq and within Baghdad. He has permitted a top al Qa'ida leader – Osama bin Laden’s eldest son – to come to Baghdad for medical treatment, and then allowed him to stay there and organize a protected terrorist cell capable of covert operations against American interests. Saddam has called for suicide murders to attack Americans worldwide. Saddam's own actions have made him the good friend of our bitter enemy. He is our enemy. Some insist that "we must get a UN resolution before we do this." The first patriot combatants in the war with Jihadistan -- those brave souls who followed Todd Beamer's rallying call "Let's roll" as he led the charge against the UAL Flight 93 terrorists hijackers -- did not wait for UN permission.
So, we need the UN's blessing ... why?
Washington correctly insists it has never needed a second resolution explicitly authorizing military action. Resolution 1441, unanimously passed in November, 2002, promises "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. It is not disputed that Iraq has failed to comply. There can be no serious debate that those consequences mean a second Gulf War, now, not later.
Of course, all of this folly has served to aptly
demonstrate that the UN has no teeth. Perhaps the UN served some purpose
when the threats were symmetric -- well-defined nation states rattling sabers.
The UN made high art during the Cold War of serving up lengthy debate "full
of sound and fury, signifying nothing" -- and, indeed, bleeding off
pressures among the free nations led by the U.S. and the captive nations under
the Communist "Evil Empire." But in the current asymmetric threat
environment, where nation states provide surrogates with WMD to do their
bidding, the UN has proven itself totally ineffective. Complicity within members
of the UN Security Council only compound this problem. However, President Hussein has used the delay to better position his batteries, rockets and artillery against U.S. invasion points and along his Western border -- in reach of Israel and our smart munitions. Saddam has also re-instituted payments to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers in the amount of $25,000 per. To date, Saddam has paid the families of these terrorists between $20- and $35-million. But Iraq, of course, "has no ties to Islamic terrorism."
Some protest that "another Gulf
War is illegal because it violates UN and/or international law." Furthermore, Resolution 678 of Nov. 29, 1990, which authorized U.N. member states "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area" (emphasis mine). Some yell a warning that this war is all "a Jewish-Zionist Plot." The answer to this is cleverly laid out by the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web, March 14, 2003, edited by James Taranto: "Pat Buchanan and Edward Said, along with others such as Rep. Jim Moran and David Duke, have been peddling the idea that the impending liberation of Iraq is the result of a conspiracy by a Zionist 'cabal,' as Buchanan calls it, that is 'colluding with Israel' to 'ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests.' The Economist notes that such paranoid bigotry in the service of 'peace' is nothing new: 'In the 1930s, when anti-Semitism was both pervasive and respectable in America, Charles Lindbergh and his America-Firsters blamed Jewish interests for trying to drag America into a pointless war with Germany.'" "We were puzzled, though, by a seeming contradiction in the Buchanan/Said/Moran/Duke theory, which holds that (a) war in Iraq will harm America's interests by inflaming the Arab and Muslim worlds and spurring more terrorism, and (b) the cabal is pursuing such a war because it is in Israel's interests. How, we asked, would such a conflagration be good for Israel, which would be right in the thick of it? Well, a helpful reader answered our question:
It's obvious! And our reader isn't the only one who's figured it out; the Tulane Hullabaloo quotes 'adjunct Tulane professor and LaRouche Democrat Marty Rowland' as saying much the same thing. For those of you whose sense of the obvious is not as keenly developed as that of our interlocutor, however, let us spell out the assumptions underlying this theory:
"Now, we know what you're thinking. (Of course we know; our Zionist masters told us.) How is it that the cabal members have managed to fool virtually the entire political leadership of the United States, while guys like Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Ed Said and the LaRouchies can see right through their little scheme? Well, think about it. If a discredited figure like Buchanan or Duke blows the whistle on the plot, no one is going to believe what he's saying. Obviously these guys are Zionist agents themselves, covering up the conspiracy by putting it out in plain sight in a way that no one will believe it!" "There's one other man who is crucial to the success of the Zionist cabal's efforts: Saddam Hussein. He has spent 12 years defying U.N. resolutions and building weapons of mass destruction, creating the rationale for invasion, and who benefits? Israel! Obviously he too is a tool of the Zionists." "You really have to think this through to understand what a devilishly clever plot the Zionists have hatched. They have managed to turn their own worst enemies--in Europe, in the Muslim world, in American universities--into defenders of Saddam Hussein, who is actually a Zionist agent!" Some complain that "Saddam is only a threat to his own people -- only a threat to his neighbors, not to us." That is false. Sure, he has and is maiming and killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, but then Hitler only killed his own Jews -- at first. We are on Saddam's list, and it’s a question of us getting him before he gets more of us.
Israel is a neighbor of Iraq and arguably our best ally in the Middle East, where over 1/2 of the world's oil comes from. Without Israel's raid on the French nuclear power plant being built in the 1980s, Saddam today would already have one or tens of nuclear bombs. He was only six months away from having nuclear weapon capabilities in 1991. During 2003 inspectors uncovered nuclear weapon plans in the private homes of Iraqi scientists, proving that Saddam has not given up that goal. There are intelligence reports that Iraq has purchased enriched uranium from Niger. True or not, we cannot afford to dismiss by deliberate inaction such threats to Israel, which is one of our best sources of valid intelligence on the international Jihadist terrorist movement confronting us, much less such threats to us here in the USA. Saddam funds suicide bombers that kill Israelis regularly. He trains and calls for such bombers to attack us here in the USA, and our interests abroad. Again, the enemy of our ally is our enemy. The French and Germans do not care about the danger to us. They have made their deals with the devil, gotten on the tiger, and are now trying to live with it without being eaten. More innocent Americans should not have to die for them to live. Saddam calls himself the "Light of the Arabs"
and "The Sword of Islam." These words have special meanings, adverse to us,
within the Islamic/Muslim world. Saddam's words have carried over into action.
Saddam is literally rebuilding the ancient city of Babylon, a la Nebuchadnezzar and Nimrod.
The Iraqis call Saddam Hussein "The Vampire" (al-Saffah).
The USA does not want war. But we can read the handwriting on the wall, and will not shirk our duty to ourselves, to our children, and to our grandchildren. Think about this: is radical Islam only a threat to its immediate neighbors in the region (who control over 1/2 the world's known supply of oil), or can it easily come over here? No, it is a worldwide threat, and yes Saudi-financed Wahabbism is already over here, now well-established nationwide. It is in our colleges. See http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6557; http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/mar/16/031609054.html (terrorists cells are in American colleges all over the nation). This dangerously intolerant sect is within federal and state prisons (in New York State, for example). It is found throughout our nation, in our cities and towns, taught in Saudi-funded mosques, led by Wahabbi-trained clerics, and espoused by elements within the Black Muslim movement. This worldwide expansion is funded by millions and millions of dollars donated by elements within the Saudi royal family, by the Muslim leadership of Iran, and from other Muslims elsewhere. Firmly dealing with Iraq now may very well make the Wahabbi sect, its Saudi supporters, and others easier to deal with next. President Reagan’s military action against Libya certainly put a lid on Moammar al Qadhafi's support of international terrorism.
Others say that "Israel has WMD, we have WMD, we used them, why can't Saddam have them?" First, you should ask yourself: Are nuclear weapons ever an appropriate option? Yes, in certain circumstances. Consider World War II -- the use of atomic weapons in Japan brought an immediate end to a bloody and costly war campaign. At least a million American and Japanese lives were saved by doing so. How? Military estimates of casualties to be incurred in the expected invasion of the Japanese homeland in 1945 put the cost at a million or more lives lost. Japanese soldiers and civilians had been taught and believed that the Emperor of Japan was a god! Japanese were expected to, and had, refused to surrender in battles throughout the Pacific Theater. Instead of surrendering, they laid down their lives in suicide attacks on Allied forces in the Pacific Theater's island-hopping approach to the Japanese homeland. An invasion of the homeland would have been much more of the same, but on a massive scale. Given the choice of a million or more lives, it is a just and moral choice to kill tens or hundreds of thousands to save a million or more. Nevertheless, others sincerely say "No, it is never an appropriate option." However, this position is against logic, reason and considered world opinion. Many "sane" and non-belligerent nations have WMDs; Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is a real deterrent against them. But MAD does not work against all enemies. Rogue nations and madmen leaders are not deterred by MAD; such leaders believe that they will not die, and they don't care if tens of millions of their own people are killed in a nuclear counterattack. It is an entirely different matter for rogue nations and their power-hungry leaders to have WMDs -- they might or would use them to force their will upon their neighbors (for example, N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq) and to gain undeserved concessions, oil territories and/or other resources. See http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html (Iran moves closer to operation of a facility to enrich uranium). By setting an example of western resolve with Iraq, we make other nations more cautious. Saddam is not "rational" as we normally think of the term; he is a belligerent, twisted, and warped mass murderer. He has already used WMD against the Kurds in northern Iraq, Iranians to his east, and elsewhere. The US and its 40 or so allies are trying to stop a maniac from getting nukes, using nuclear and/or other WMD on us or others, and using nuclear blackmail to have his way. As for Israel’s nuclear weapons program, well, like it or not -- history has shown that Israel's situation is different. You cannot compare apples to oranges. Israel is constantly threatened by other belligerent states who outnumber it 10 to 1. Israel's leaders believe it essential to their survival as a people and a nation to have a nuclear deterrent. Perhaps given their present reality they are correct. The PLO and other organized anti-Israel factions, whatever else they may say in English, are pledged to their Arabic-speaking supporters to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. Further, Israel has never used its nuclear arsenal and logic dictates that it would not, unless attacked first with WMDs or as a "last resort" to avoid military defeat. You simply cannot say that about Saddam (or N. Korea or Iran); Saddam has already used chemical and biologic WMD against Iran, the Kurds, and his own people. Some opponents of war say "we're all alone in this war - we need the rest of the world behind us first!"
And enough of the rest of the world we shall eventually have. Over forty nations are with us already. Kuwaitis express overwhelming support for plans to remove Saddam Hussein and his entire regime, and have denounced the killing of Americans in the name of Islam. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030318-90480728.htm. The country that Saddam invaded and brutally occupied 12 years ago is now serving as a base for U.S. forces poised to remove the Iraqi dictator. Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and was driven out in February 1991 by a U.S.-led coalition. A public opinion poll released on March 17, 2003, found that 89.6 percent of those surveyed support removing Saddam's government, with 8.2 percent opposing an invasion. "This is a genuine feeling in Kuwait," said Tareq Eid al-Mezrem of the Kuwait Information Office in Washington. "Saddam was a disaster." The poll was conducted by Shafeeq Ghabra, former director of the information office and now president of the American University in Kuwait, which is scheduled to open for classes next year. Mr. Ghabra's survey of 616 Kuwaitis — 366 men and 250 women — also found that 86.3 percent of those polled favored Kuwaiti government support for military action against Saddam. A surprising 74.3 percent favored helping the Iraqi people, even though Iraq's occupation was marked by murder, rape and widespread looting. More than 90 percent of Kuwaitis rejected claims made by Muslim terrorists that Islam sanctions the killing of Americans and other foreigners. About 2.5 percent believe killing for Islam is justified, a finding demonstrated by the small number of attacks on Americans. Since October, terrorists have killed one Marine and one civilian in separate attacks. The survey was conducted by the university's Media and Dialogue Center.
Consider too that 71% or more of Americans currently support this war, as compared to 41% for the 1991 Gulf War conflict. And, while Prime Minister Tony Blair may or may not be in real trouble within his own Labour Party, the needs of the many must outweigh the needs of the one or the few. Besides, what is right is right – true leaders like Blair lead.
This time we have a bigger coalition than the first Gulf War: 45 countries have already signed on in one form or another. The only countries that stand in our way are the French and Germans, Belgium, Cuba and Syria, and their like. The overwhelming majority (12 out of 15) of the European Union nations are public additions to the "roster of the willing." Ten more former Iron Curtain states, who know firsthand what it's like to live under a murderous tyrant, have publicly stated their support for this course of action. The 30 countries listed by the State Department as members with the United States of a "Coalition for the Immediate Disarmament of Iraq": Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan (post-conflict), South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on March 18, 2003, that all 30 agreed to be designated as coalition members, but he would not specify their prospective contributions. He said 15 or more additional countries, all unidentified, could offer help under certain conditions. Beyond the 30 countries named by the State Department, other countries have indicated a willingness to offer help: Bahrain - Sent a frigate and troops on Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup. Belgium - Allowed movement of troops and materiel from U.S. bases in Germany to port of Antwerp en route to the Persian Gulf; will allow overflights. Bulgaria - Approved U.S. use of military airport and airspace, dispatching 150-member Bulgarian noncombat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops. Canada - Will not join military action without U.N. backing. A destroyer and two frigates patrolling in the gulf area as part of war on terrorism could be reassigned, but Prime Minister Jean Chretien suggested Monday the ships will not be transferred and will stay on patrol in gulf area. Croatia - Allowing refueling stops by U.S. transport aircraft. Egypt - Keeping Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to gulf. France - Allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations, but no direct participation unless Iraq uses WMD, in which case France has offered to send in specialized chemical and biologic equipment and personnel.
Germany - Ruled out any participation, but pledges unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany. About 60 German soldiers are in Kuwait as part of the U.N. border monitoring force, operating specialized vehicles for detecting chemical or germ warfare; parliament has barred them from entering Iraq. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS crews and Patriot anti-missile rockets. Greece - U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. 6th Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Allowing use of airspace under NATO and bilateral defense agreements, but will not send troops. Jordan - "Several hundred" or more U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel. Kuwait - Around 300,000 U.S. and British troops training in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq. Portugal - Granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional eastern Atlantic refueling stop. Qatar - U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al-Udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, F-15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars. Saudi Arabia - Won't participate directly in any military action but is permitting increased basing of military personnel, airplanes, and direct military operations oversight. Pentagon says it has assurances the United States could launch air support missions from Saudi bases, although publicly Saudi officials say decision not yet made. Defense Minister Prince Sultan confirmed this month that Araar Airport, near Iraqi border, was closed to civilian traffic. He said it was to make way for humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees, not U.S. military operations. Top Saudi royal family members are trying to help US-led war, without being too public about it. The Heritage Foundation enumerates 16 countries that aren't on Powell's list but "have publicly offered either political or military support for the war": Bahrain, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Jordan, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Taiwan, Ukraine and United Arab Emirates. Well, it's a stretch to count Canada, Germany and especially France as allies (Reuters reports today that "Paris had to clarify remarks by its ambassador in Washington that gave the false impression that France would join the fight in Iraq if Baghdad used chemical or biological weapons"), and it's true that American troops will do most of the work (with a lot of help from the British and a significant contribution from the Australians) -- but even so, and contrary to Friedman, isn't it getting a bit crowded in here? Some nevertheless complain bitterly that "this war is only about oil!" Analyze who gains from the resulting oil glut on the market when and if the US gets control of the Iraqi oil fields and starts pumping lots of oil to rebuild Iraq. (I say "if" because the Wall Street Journal has reported that American, French and Russian oil experts say that Iraq's oil reserves and the quality of its production are both declining, and the Iraqi oil production infrastructure is old and broken, thus their ability to quickly produce more oil does not exist and may not be in shape to increase production for five years.) But, if post-war there is a huge glut on the world oil market, the basic economic theory of supply and demand means that oil prices will plummet. Bush and his alleged "cronies" in the oil world will surely take a substantial hit in profits. Further, the United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by working to lift the UN sanctions and allowing its companies to help repair Iraq's oilfield production facilities. It is the French, Chinese and Russians who have all the billions in oil deals with Saddam, and thus are fixated on having the UN sanctions lifted. France, China and Russia don't want an Iraqi war that would upset those oil deals. So, I guess it is not just about the US getting more oil, is it? But in a perverse way this is a war about oil. French, Russian, Chinese and German companies (French TotalFinaElf, SA, Russian oil giants Lukoil, Zarubezhneft and Rosneftetc, and Chinese rocket-fuel chemical companies) have oil service and chemical supply contracts with Iraq. They stand to lose tens or hundreds of billions of dollars if Saddam is removed from power. Lukoil, the biggest oil company in Russia, bragged in September, 2002, that it had received assurances from the Kremlin (and the Kremlin from the US) that their oil assets in Iraq -- a $20 billion contract to drill the West Qurna oilfield -- would be protected in the event of a regime change. Two Russian oil giants, Zarubezhneft and Rosneft, announced on December 10, 2002, that they were jointly preparing to sign a contract to develop the massive Nahr Umr oilfield in Iraq, which they said contains 3 billion tons of crude oil -- worth an estimated £350 billion (yes, 350 billion English pounds). Who stands to profit by no war? You do the math. See http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=5092 and http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10378933 Perhaps it is time to caution France, Russia, Germany and China that a war of liberation to free the Kurds and the citizens of Iraq -- without French, German or Chinese active support -- will mean no more oil monies and oil contract profits for them. See http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030314-095811-8865r (Prime Minister Barhim Salih in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government warns French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored."). During the 1990s France, Russia and Germany were the major suppliers of ordinance, jets, helicopters, supply parts, munitions, precursor chemicals, and weapons-making equipment to Iraq, at grossly inflated prices (for example, the French led by Chirac contracting in the early 1970s to receive $250 million for a nuclear power plant which at the time should have cost only $70 million). These sales were in knowing, clear violation of UN sanctions -- and plain common sense. Intelligence sources report that in violation of UN sanctions two French companies have supplied Mirage F-1 fighter jet and Gazelle military attack helicopter repair parts to Iraq as late as January of 2003. See http://www.rense.com/general35/frenchp.htm. Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. If documented proof of such violations gets out after the liberation of Iraq, what do you think might happen to France's permanent seat and veto on the UN Security Council? Might not there be serious deliberation by the US, Great Britain, their 40 or so coalition partners, and others in the UN for France to lose its permanent Security Council seat and to give it to a more worthy major nation, say, India? After all, that UN seat was given to Gen. Charles de Gaulle somewhat as a good-will gesture; France ceased to be a world power before the 1940s. With India already the most populous democracy and soon to be the most populous nation, with its population growing more in a week than the entire European Union's grows in a year, why exactly is France (population 60 million) a permanent member of the Security Council? What of the largest Latin American nation (Brazil, 176 million), or the largest East Asian democracy (Japan, 127 million), or the largest Islamic nation (Indonesia, 231 million)? See http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/6265097p-7219125c.html. All of these reasons explain the major part of Russian, French and German objections to this war. Some complain that "you're only in it for the money -- you aren't thinking about the poor innocent people who will get hurt." As most wars are, yes, this is a war fought in part to protect our economy and the economies of our Western allies. One would think that the need to protect the world’s economy from calamity caused by terrorist attacks requires little further justification. But there are those (mostly on the left) who do not see it that way. For them, an economic motivation is merely a selfish motivation. It isn't sufficient for them that a depression would cause many in America, Spain, Great Britain and elsewhere to lose their jobs, lose their income security, perhaps their health insurance, and perhaps even their life’s savings or homes. After all, opponents like to point out that few people in America or Britain are likely to die as a result of this war, whereas in Iraq many will die. Apparently our economic welfare doesn't matter, just like a liberation of the Iraqi people doesn't matter to the anti-American left, or to France.
But what about the world's poor? The high priests of anti-materialism don't ever seem to consider what effect economic devastation among rich countries would have on the Third World. When "First World" economies shrink, so does demand for Third World products. When members of a Third World extended family lose their jobs or suffer a reduction in work hours because of a world-wide economic slowdown, consequences are real and immediate: elderly relatives may die because the family can no longer afford medical treatment, children are deprived of an education because the family can no longer afford them because there is no work-produced income, members of some families may even starve. Now, the Left can call these consequences "economic" if it likes. But if defending those who rely on a healthy global economy to feed and clothe themselves is not a moral imperative, what on earth is? Some argue that "the evidence of Iraqi non-compliance is imprecise, uncertain, made up, false!" Those who refuse to believe the credibility of the evidence supplied by the USA and Great Britain, the personal stories of Iraqi defectors and refugees and others are simply immune to truth or logic. See http://www.desert-voice.net/weapons_of_iraq.htm. If such persons doubt US credibility and deny first-hand eye-witness evidence of those with personal knowledge of Iraqi WMD programs, they can not be reasoned with. You can not convince them because they are not willing to be convinced by truth. Logic and reason did not lead them to their conclusions, and logic and reason will not change their opinions. However, the USA is not the sole source of the evidence: some of it came from the UN inspections and from intercepted sources within Iraq itself. Chief Weapons Inspector Blix filed his report with the UN detailing 29 "clusters" of unresolved WMD disarmament issues. On Iraq's enormous stores of anthrax, the report states "UNMOVIC has credible information . ... Based on all the available evidence the strong presumption is that about 10,000 liters of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist." The decision by Dr. Blix to declassify the internal UNMOVIC report makes public its suspicions about Iraq’s banned weapons programs, rather than what it has been able to actually confirm: “UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of biological warfare agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 litres more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax.” The report further says there is “credible information” indicating that 21,000 liters of biological warfare agent, including some 10,000 liters of anthrax, was stored in bulk at locations around the country during the war and was never destroyed. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html Sixteen (16) weeks after the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, the Iraqi regime has neither complied nor cooperated "immediately, unconditionally, and actively," as required by 1441, and is in "material breach." So, why not go to the source and look at all the evidence, with Saddam removed from power? How long then would it take US forces to find the "smoking gun" you ask for? Others question: "well, who gave them their weapons in the 80's? The USA did!" So what? Under American criminal law, the seller of the gun is almost never criminally liable for a murder committed by the gun sold. Yes, the US supplied Saddam with some of his WMD -- anthrax germ seed, perhaps other items. But so did France and Germany and Russia. That does not mean that the world community, led by the USA, cannot or should not now take all of these items away. Iraq under President Hussein has misused its weapons, and Saddam must lose them as a just consequence of his own actions. And, yes, we admit it – the US is sometimes it own worst enemy. We’re human, we made mistakes, and we will continue to make mistakes. But remember one of the basic rules of international politics: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Alliances exist, sometimes unsavory, until they are no longer politically tenable or realistically necessary. That was our situation with Saddam in the 1980s; we needed him to help us correct President Jimmy Carter's utterly failed policies in Iran (remember the Shah of Iran leaving, the resulting 1970s world economic depression caused by the loss of Iranian oil production, the Arab OPEC oil embargo, and the American Embassy hostages?). We needed Islamic fundamentalists countered in Iran, and then we need help to counter the 1980s invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. The enemy of our enemy was, at those times, our friend in the region. That is life – deal with it. But, that was then, this is now. Now is the time to start rectify these errors. Some bitterly claim that "this is the first ever American preemptive strike, and therefore wrong!"
Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. No, it's not the first American preemptive strike. And, even if it were, "we no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." – President John F. Kennedy, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Just looking at more recent history alone, the non-UN sanctioned US bombing campaign in Kosovo in the 1990s by President Bill Clinton was a preemptive US and NATO action -- we had not been struck first. And what about the Panama invasion, the rescue of medical students on the island of Grenada, and the Haiti military actions in the 1980s and 1990s? Those were examples of US preemptive actions, taken with nary a peep out of the left. There are other examples in American history from the 1700s, including the Barbary Pirates war, through the American/British-Indian wars and the British-French wars, and throughout the 1800s and 1900s. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered aggressive patrolling by the U.S. Navy against German submarines in the North Atlantic on -- note the day -- Sept. 11, 1941, he said:
Furthermore, technically this is not a preemptive strike; it is a resumption of suspended hostilities. The first Gulf War ended in 1991 with a cease fire under which Saddam agreed to, within 15 days, declare and give up his WMD -- nuclear, biologic and chemical. Under those conditions, the US-led coalition agreed to stop bombing Iraq. It is undisputed that Iraq has failed in honoring its cease-fire obligations to give up its weapons of mass destruction, return all Kuwaiti hostages and American military hostages, return all Kuwaiti plunder, etc. Remember Scott Speicher, the American military pilot who was captured by Iraq and never returned? Kuwait says 600 of its citizens and other nationals disappeared when Iraq invaded the country in 1990. They are still missing 12 years later. In November, 2001 two members of the Mukhabarat who defected claimed that the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) service operated a secret underground detection center at Salman Pak, about 30 km south of Baghdad, where about 80 Kuwaiti prisoners of war continued to be held following the 1991 Gulf War. Iraq accuses Kuwait of holding more than 1,000 Iraqis, but of course because Saddam Hussein is such an impossible liar no government really believes any Iraqis are being held by Kuwait. Saudi Arabia also has a few citizens missing. The US has one known missing person, Capt. Scott Speicher. See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030316/ap_wo_en_ge/me_gen_jordan_kuwait_missing_2 For these reasons, with impunity we have intermittently resumed bombing in the last decade (remember Clinton's four-days of bombing in 1998 after the UN inspectors were kicked out?). We have bombed over two hundred times since 1999 alone. This war would just be picking up where we left off, with an even larger coalition of over 40 nations. We are already at war. The U.S.
Army's web servers have been hacked. The incident occurred last week, when
an undisclosed number of U.S. Army Web servers were hit in a so-called
"0-day" exploit, one that takes advantage of a flaw nobody knew of and
for which there was no available patch. See http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0%2C4902%2C79478%2C0.html?nlid=AM.
The Army was not connected to any critical systems, said Russ Cooper of research
and security services firm TruSecure Corp. based in Herndon, Virginia. The
world is being victimized by an epidemic of terrorism — from the September 11
attacks, the USS Cole bombing in Yemen and suicide bombers in Israel, to
murderous kidnappings in the Philippines, a nightclub bombing in Bali, the
deadly guerrilla takeover of a Moscow opera house, and the fatal hotel bombing
in Kenya. Is there a connection among these far-flung terrorist acts? The war will be fought on many levels. The recent rash of Internet worms has produced an army of hundreds of thousands of compromised machines that could ultimately be used to launch a massive distributed denial of service attack at any time, according to security officials. Officials at the CERT Coordination Center said the organization is monitoring at least five large networks of compromised machines installed with so-called bots. The bots connect compromised PCs or servers to Internet Relay Chat servers, which attackers commonly use to execute commands on the remote systems. At least one of these networks has more than 140,000 machines, officials said. "We have seen indications that these networks are being used [for attacks]," said Marty Lindner, team leader for incident handling at the CERT center at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh. "The potential is there for them to cause serious long-term damage." See http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,933597,00.asp. Some who protest the coming war say
that "the Iraqi people don't want us in their
country. The Iraqi regime is the least of our concerns. We will be able to deal
with that -- but what will be the public reaction there? Will they buy that we
liberated them or will they continue to look at the U.S. as oppressors?" Their fellow Middle Easterners and their antiwar allies are "misguided," says Muhannad Eshaiker, an Irvine, Calif., architect and a member of the Iraqi Forum for Democracy, one of a number of groups favoring liberation of Iraq. "We support a regime change that is long overdue," he says. "Nobody has been listening to the voices of Iraqis in America, not the Arabs, not the French ... even these peace people, who think that if we remove the sanctions things will be OK. Well, they won't be." A letter in March, 2003, from 11 prominent Iraqi-Americans to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice urges the Bush administration to discount the loud and insistent domestic protests against the war. Those protesters "have no clue what justice is and who has brought war, bloodshed and annihilation by weapons of mass destruction and wholesale devastation to Iraq and the region," they say. Iraqis here in
Michigan, which has the largest Arab and largest Iraqi communities in the United
States, are frustrated by the refusal of some of their fellow Middle Easterners
to understand their persecution and perspective. "They speak out of
ignorance," says Mohammed Ogaily, a 41-year-old oncologist from Ann Arbor.
"It is truly a sticking point in our relations with them, because they
haven't lived under Saddam." While Iraqis --
both Muslim and Christian -- have fought plenty of wars, says Nouri Sitto, a
Chaldean who owns a sign-making shop in suburban Oak Park, "at least we
aren't terrorists." His icy retort is emblematic of a rift between
Iraqis and other Arabs. Iraqis seek freedom for their county, and know that the
United States is the best chance they will ever have to achieve freedom.
Certainly France and Germany will never help -- they are too interested in
Saddam's money to care about freedom for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are ready to fight Saddam for their freedom. Open acts of defiance by opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime have intensified in the week before the war officially began, with saboteurs carrying out attacks against Iraq's railway system and protesters openly calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator. The most blatant act of sabotage took place 20 miles south of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, where members of the Iraqi opposition blew up a stretch of track on the Mosul-Baghdad railway, causing the derailment of a train. "Until recently such acts of open defiance were very rare and were dealt with harshly," a Foreign Office official commented yesterday. "But as Saddam concentrates his energies on trying to protect his regime from attack, Iraqi opposition groups are becoming more audacious in their attacks." Before fleeing back to their base in Kurdistan, the saboteurs left piles of leaflets by the side of the track urging the Iraqi soldiers who were sent to investigate the explosion to join the "international alliance to liberate Iraq" from "Saddam the criminal." See http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030317-24999690.htm Others warn that "the Bush Doctrine of a Just War on Terror is only an unproven theory." They warn that this "unilateral action will get us in big trouble." Well, it is not unilateral and 9-11 was not a theory; it was a fact. Furthermore, all "theories" begin as unproved hypotheses. Gravity started as a theory, but now it is a law because it has been applied and proven. The so-called Bush Doctrine of a Just War is not a theory because it is being applied; it is having and will continue to have results in forcing Iraqi disarmament (even Hans Blix admits that; see hyperlink above). The achievable goal here is disrupting terrorist operations. This is not hypothetical. (And remember, this is a continuation of the first Gulf War, which paused with a cease fire but really never officially ended. See above.).
Risk is a part of life. Sometimes taking managed risks is necessary. We pray for correct decisions, knowledge and wisdom, always realizing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, or the few. Some argue that "nobody inspects America, why should Iraq be subject to inspections?" This is a completely false argument -- a lie. America is inspected also. See the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (SALT and START, respectively). They both require constant verification of our nuclear/biological stockpile. (Note that the most drastic nuclear reduction in America occurred under President George H.W. Bush, and the largest ever unilateral announced reduction was made by President George W. Bush.) (See also Cold Dawn: The Story of SALT by John Newhouse and The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime : Prospects for the 21st Century by Thomas, Raju G. C.) Some argue that "we
should not try to disarm Iraq because France and a few other countries are
opposed to it."
Some opposed the war because they claim
that Saddam Hussein has reasonably agreed with the United Nations Inspectors to
disarm. They point to the spectacle of his destruction of around 60 or 70
of his intermediate-range missiles, the al Samoud 2s. Saddam is only doing
this because he hopes to cool the impetus toward war. Likely, he will soon up
the ante and offer to destroy his stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent
weaponry. Some argue that "Iraq's weapons are not very effective anyway, so they are not a threat to us." Even before the current military buildup, our military, civilian and diplomatic forces were scattered throughout the Middle East and northern Africa, well within Saddam's target range. We have other interests elsewhere that are targets (remember the Kenya embassy bombing?). A well financed and trained terrorist force, utilized as Iraqi agents, can strike with WMD and dirty bombs anywhere in the world. We are a target. Interrogations of captured Taliban and al Qa'ida members reveals that years ago Iraq gave al Qa'ida training in the preparation and use of chemical WMD. They are a threat to us. If we don’t take them out -- Iraq, al Qa'ida, etc. -- they will hit us over and over and eventually may bring us to our knees. A good offense is the best defense. Chief UN weapons inspector Dr. Hans Blix's 173-page report to the UN Security Council states that Iraq has not accounted for at least 50 Scud B warheads and 6,500 bombs laced with chemical weapons, plus VX nerve agents, Sarin gas, anthrax, a version of a South African cluster bomb that could disperse chemical weapons over a target, unmanned drone airplanes rigged to disperse chemical and biologic agents, and other UN-banned items. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-603370,00.html. Iraq's statements from the early 1990s detailed its stockpile of tons of VX nerve gas, Sarin gas, Anthrax, etc. According to Dr. Blix, almost all of those WMD actually remain unaccounted for. See Blix UN Report hyperlink (above). These weapons can easily be supplied to al Qa'ida or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or any one of a dozen other Islamic Jihadist groups out to destroy the USA, if they have not already been so supplied with Iraqi WMD. Any or all of those groups would not hesitate to use them against us and our allies. Hezbollah twice bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, murdering more than 60 people, and drove a suicide bomb into a Marine barracks in October 1983, killing 241 servicemen. Such uses could never be traced back to its Iraqi source. See http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12265723,00.html. Even Robert Taft and Charles Lindbergh ceased accommodating Axis aggression after Pearl Harbor. Since 9/11, by contrast, the anti-war crowd has collapsed into a mood of despairing surrender unparalleled since the Vichy republic went out of business. James Burnham famously defined liberalism as "the ideology of Western suicide." As Oscar Wilde observed, "Misfortunes one can endure: They come from outside, they are accidents. But to suffer for one's own faults — ah! There is the sting of life." Easier and less painful to blame others and pity oneself than to stand up and confront evil, calling it what it is. See also the press images of Iraqi practice spraying of biological and chemical sprays – weapons of mass destruction – from small Mirage F-1 jets, the unmanned drones discovered in March, 2003, by the UN inspectors in Iraq, and small propeller-driven aircraft. Realize that during 2000 the FBI received reports, which the US news media widely reported, of al Qa'ida terror cells within the USA seeking such crop-spraying aircraft and pilot training. Saddam and his allies can be and are a threat even to those within the USA.
The bottom line is this – are you willing to risk more American, British, Spanish, Christian, and Jewish lives. Are you really willing to risk your life and the lives of those you love waiting for this threat to be fully realized within the USA ... today or tomorrow, next week or next year?
Well, even if you are, others aren't. You protestors, Frenchmen and Germans, Belgian wafflers, Chinese, Russians, and all the rest do not have the right to make that decision for us. We will not let you put our lives at further risk. The decision to act, or not, is not the United Nations Security Council's to make. Congress having voted overwhelmingly to support a war upon Iraq, that decision is now solely vested in the President of the United States of America. Our President has and will continue to consult with US allies, and will take the right actions at the proper times. Like it or not, this nation reserves that right.
|
