The eagerness to take out Hussein

The eagerness to take out Hussein

By MARTIN DYCKMAN, Times Associate Editor
© St. Petersburg Times
published September 8, 2002

TALLAHASSEE -- No living American can recall a president as eager for war as George W. Bush appears to be, and there may be no precise parallel in all of our history. Not since the Mexican War has the United States knowingly fired first. Poor William McKinley, who had to be dragged into it, had at least the pretext of "Remember the Maine," though it eventually came out that explosive coal dust, not a Spanish torpedo, was more likely to blame for sinking the ship. Ever since, our war presidents have been in the posture of responding to aggression against ourselves or our friends, a justification that fails to stand up only with respect to Vietnam.

That Bush is so bellicose doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. But the rest of the case isn't so simple. The question is not just what Hussein might do if he isn't attacked, but what he might do if he is.

The White House invokes the memory of Franklin Roosevelt, who fully understood the menace of Adolf Hitler but was frustrated by an isolationist Senate from helping the British until it was nearly too late. And of course it cannot talk about Hussein without bringing up Hitler himself.

That point is apt. The beginning of World War II can be traced not just to the invasion of Poland in 1939, or the Munich agreement a year earlier that had infamously "appeased" Hitler at the expense of Czechoslovakia, but all the way back to his earliest days in power, when he re-armed Germany in violation of the treaty that had formally ended World War I. The last, best chance to stop him short of global war was lost in 1936 when he sent troops into the western part of Germany, the Rhineland, that had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, and France -- the stronger power at that time -- did nothing to stop him. Having promised to allow arms inspections as a condition for surviving the Gulf War, Hussein walked in Hitler's footsteps when he threw the inspectors out.

Is there a moral justification for taking him out? Absolutely. Is he ruthless? Certainly. Is he trying to come into possession of nuclear weapons? No doubt.

But the Bush administration's argument that he will eventually use weapons of mass destruction if he is not attacked prompts equally important questions. Hussein not only has poison gas but has already employed it in combat. Under what circumstance might be use it again? As a last resort, perhaps, when U.S. troops close in on his bunker beneath the smoking ruins of Baghdad?

Invasion is, in fact, the one circumstance most likely to provoke Hussein into unleashing poison gas. The targets would not be just American forces in the field, who would be prepared for it. Nor is Israel the only other potential victim. The Saudis and Kuwaitis should be nervous, too.

Saddam Hussein is just about every bad thing one could call him. Tyrant. Murderer. Ruthless. Evil. But nobody has seriously suggested that he is insane, at least not to the point that he can no longer perceive and respect superior power. It cannot be far from his mind that the first use of any weapon of mass destruction would be suicidal.

Nor is it just the United States whose retaliation he would have to fear. Israel does not pretend any longer to deny that it has nuclear weapons. Under attack from Iraqi Scud missiles with nerve gas warheads, Israel would be entirely justified in a nuclear response. But if there were nothing left for Hussein to lose, such a consequence might no longer be so unthinkable. Another thing that should be remembered about Hitler is that he wanted Germany to die with him; only the belated disobedience of Albert Speer and others kept that demoniacal Gotterdammerung from becoming a reality.

The administration's entire argument for a preventive attack turns on the scenario of Iraq developing a nuclear weapon as an instrument of blackmail. As seen in the light of Iraq's existing chemical capability, however, blackmail is a present danger. Congress cannot possibly debate war without acknowledging this.

Vice President Dick Cheney, the loudest hawk, is no doubt haunted in hindsight by the decision to let Hussein and his regime survive once Desert Storm had fulfilled its mission under U.N. authority to liberate Kuwait. But regret is no substitute for sober reflection on the full consequence of launching a new Mideast war for which there is no explicit U.N. authority, no support from any government other than Great Britain's and opposition from most everyone else. The speculative results of allowing the present Iraqi regime to remain in power must be weighed against the consequences of a pre-emptive attack to civilians, in Baghdad and elsewhere, to the economy of this nation, and to the survival of America's friends in that region.

It is ironic that this war is proposed by an American administration whose own legitimacy is clouded by a contested election and that the top official who conspicuously has the least to say in favor of it is the only one among them who ever commanded troops in combat. What does Colin Powell know that the hawks don't?

Ever since, our war presidents have been in the posture of responding to aggression against ourselves or our friends, a justification that fails to stand up only with respect to Vietnam.

In order to prevent this statement from being a big fat lie, one has to make (at the very least) the following two assumptions:

1. When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, apparently that was not "aggression... against our friends". In other words, this editor insists that the people of South Vietnam were not our friends, thus not worthy of defense. Interesting, huh?

2. The editor makes no mention of our bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, which can only mean that he thinks that exercise was "responding to aggression against... our friends" (certainly not against ourselves, of course). So, which "aggression"? The aggression of Milsoevic against "Kosovar" "ethnic Albanians", presumably.

Question: Why does this editor consider the "Kosovar" "ethnic Albanians" to have been our "friends", but not the South Vietnamese? I'm just wondering.

The question is not just what Hussein might do if he isn't attacked, but what he might do if he is.

Yes, that is a fair question. Does this guy have an answer, or just a bunch of wind?

Having promised to allow arms inspections as a condition for surviving the Gulf War, Hussein walked in Hitler's footsteps when he threw the inspectors out. [...] Hussein not only has poison gas but has already employed it in combat. Under what circumstance might be use it again? As a last resort, perhaps, when U.S. troops close in on his bunker beneath the smoking ruins of Baghdad?

Now this guy's all over the map. Failure to preemptively respond to Hitler's rearmament was wrong in retrospect because it was the "last, best chance" to stop his rise. But preemptively responding to Hussein's rearmament is wrong because of what he might do if we attack him. But what might he do later, if we don't attack him, when he's had the opportunity to make more weapons? Hmm? That's the whole point of looking at the historical example of Hitler, after all. Sheesh.

I mean, this editor now has all the ingredients to come to the right conclusion, and yet he still can't bring himself to do it. It's like seeing someone fail to add 2 and 2 correctly, even when there are four apples on the table in front of him to play with. It's so frustrating.

But nobody has seriously suggested that he is insane,

Well in that case, let me be the first....

at least not to the point that he can no longer perceive and respect superior power

What "superior power"? If we are so reluctant to attack him, no matter what he does or how many weapons we build, and especially if we pre-emptively blackmail ourselves into ruling out attacking him (which is what this writer is advocating) - we don't exactly project an idea of "power" to him. Just the opposite, in fact. We communicate to him only that we are indecisive and fearful wimps and that he can push us around, and do anything that he wants.

Under attack from Iraqi Scud missiles with nerve gas warheads, Israel would be entirely justified in a nuclear response.

Well, it's easy for him to say now, when it's only a hypothetical. But I truly wonder if this author would say so in such an event. My guess is he'd shift his position a little. But that's another issue.

The administration's entire argument for a preventive attack turns on the scenario of Iraq developing a nuclear weapon as an instrument of blackmail.

And ironically, this author proves the administration correct by arguing that we should submit to this blackmail before it even happens, before he even gets nukes, on the basis of Saddam's bio weapons alone!

As seen in the light of Iraq's existing chemical capability, however, blackmail is a present danger.

Ok then, the author even admits it! So what's the problem?

... launching a new Mideast war for which there is no explicit U.N. authority,

who cares

no support from any government other than Great Britain's

who cares

and opposition from most everyone else

who cares

All these things are irrelevant.

The speculative results of allowing the present Iraqi regime to remain in power must be weighed against the consequences of a pre-emptive attack to civilians, in Baghdad and elsewhere, to the economy of this nation, and to the survival of America's friends in that region.

Fair enough. Of course we should weigh these things. And most of us have.

Merely stating that we "should weigh" the costs of war is not an argument against war. The costs of war may not outweigh the benefits of war (combined with the costs of no war), after all. One needs to actually do the heavy lifting of weighing these costs, something this guy doesn't even try to do, seeming to think that merely pointing to drawbacks is an argument of some sort. It's not.

It is ironic that this war is proposed by an American administration whose own legitimacy is clouded by a contested election and that the top official who conspicuously has the least to say in favor of it is the only one among them who ever commanded troops in combat. What does Colin Powell know that the hawks don't?

Silly, cheap, non sequitur parting shot. Not even worth responding to. Author must still be seething over Election 2000 though - just couldn't resist throwing this line in there, could he?

Worthless editorial. And the sad part is, he gets some things right and even presents much of the pro-war argument fairly - it's just that he doesn't allow his brain to do its job, which is to put 2 and 2 together and obtain 4.

Probably because he's so blinded by resentment over Election 2000 that he can't allow himself to agree with Bush on anything. Sad, really.

The beginning of World War II can be traced not just to the invasion of Poland in 1939, or the Munich agreement a year earlier that had infamously "appeased" Hitler at the expense of Czechoslovakia, but all the way back to his earliest days in power, when he re-armed Germany in violation of the treaty that had formally ended World War I. The last, best chance to stop him short of global war was lost in 1936 when he sent troops into the western part of Germany, the Rhineland, that had been demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, and France -- the stronger power at that time -- did nothing to stop him.

This assertion is correct.

Invasion is, in fact, the one circumstance most likely to provoke Hussein into unleashing poison gas. The targets would not be just American forces in the field, who would be prepared for it. Nor is Israel the only other potential victim. The Saudis and Kuwaitis should be nervous, too.

Probably true also.

Here the author loses it completely. The first two paragraphs indicate strongly, if anything, we should have attacked in force three years ago when the inspectors were thrown out. Instead, the Clinton administration permitted Saddam plenty of time to rebuild his arsenal, just as the French did with Hitler, in 1936. The logical conclusion from the author's first two points is that we should have already attacked Iraq, and we better get on with the war soon before Iraq gets stronger, or risk a potential WWIII. Instead he leans toward the same appeasement methods the French and British tried with Hitler.

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.