 |
 |
|
|
Posted on 09/15/2002 11:02:34 PM PDT by ThePythonicCow
Fact and Comment
As we mournfully mark the anniversary of Sept. 11, President Bush is in the throes of making the most fateful decision so far in the war against terrorism: what to do about Iraq. The blunt truth is that to win this war, we must remove Saddam Hussein. The case for doing so is compelling, despite opposition.
Saddam still has ambitions to dominate the Middle East and to harm our interests there and elsewhere. To pursue those ambitions, this tyrant has been quite willing to starve his people; 1991's post-Gulf-war oil embargo would have been lifted long ago had Saddam lived up to the agreement he signed when he was defeated. Instead, he played games with U.N. weapons inspectors, hobbling their work at every turn. Four years ago he threw them out, unilaterally stopping the process. Despite the difficulty of access, inspectors had uncovered tons of deadly chemicals, among them mustard gas. High-level Iraqi defectors testify that Saddam's efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction, including nukes, has been ongoing.
The Butcher of Baghdad has repeatedly demonstrated a ruthlessness worthy of a Hitler or Stalin, including gassing tens of thousands of his own citizens. He attacked Iran in 1980, triggering an eight-year war that took the lives of some 1 million people. Not long after that ghastly conflict Saddam seized Kuwait. In 1996 he raided the supposed sanctuary of the Kurds in northern Iraq. He supports terrorists and terrorism. One of his ploys is paying bounties to families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Opponents of preemptive action say we should try containing Iraq. But, as he develops his lethal chemical and biological weapons, Saddam will certainly employ them to advance his dreams of blood, power and conquest.
We should not be deterred by European opposition. Our allies can be lethally obtuse. In the early 1990s they told us they could solve the Balkan conflicts resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia. They were utterly ineffective. After several hundred thousand unnecessary deaths, we became directly involved, and the conflict in Bosnia was halted. Ditto Kosovo. Nor did one particularly vocal critic, France, cover itself in glory when it stood aside in 1994 and did nothing to stop the horrific genocide in Rwanda-- some 800,000 Tutsis were literally hacked to death over the course of four months.
Other opponents of direct action say Saddam's overthrow would destabilize the region. How in the world does Saddam's murderous behavior against his own people and his neighbors qualify as stability? (When Saddam goes, we should follow FORBES columnist Paul Johnson's advice and try to bring back the Hashemite monarchy that was bloodily ousted in Iraq in 1958. The Hashemite branch ruling Jordan has done so wisely and well.) Still others say that a desperate Saddam might use his biological and chemical weapons. But that fear underscores the point: As Saddam's deadly arsenal grows in volume and effectiveness, his ability to intimidate and harm others only grows worse.
It is true that North Korea and Iran may be even more dangerous perpetrators of terrorism and producers of weapons of mass destruction. But let's start with Saddam. Our success in removing him may well encourage internal forces in Iran to overthrow that country's hated clerical dictatorship. And it may bring a badly needed sense of reality to elements of North Korea's regime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.