The Fall of Saddam

Hoover Institution ^ | March 18, 2002 | Robert Zelnick

[efnwriter]

The compelling insight embraced by the decision to dislodge Saddam is that the war against terrorism cannot be won if the war against weapons of mass destruction is lost.

The Fall of Saddam by Robert Zelnick
Robert Zelnick is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and acting director of the Department of Journalism at Boston University.	On the day Saddam Hussein falls, there will be dancing in the streets of Baghdad. The country will not implode. Military analysts will ponder a victory that was less costly than many projected. States such as Syria and Iran will proclaim their aversion to terrorism. NATO will forget its early opposition. Now, during the prebattle period, naysayers are having their day. Why Iraq? It is no worse than others on the "axis of evil." After all, Iran has longer-range missiles and sells more weapons. North Korea may already be nuclear. They caution against, in Al Gore's words, "wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios." Iraq is tougher than the Taliban; the Iraqi National Congress is no Northern Alliance. And they note international concern. The Saudis have an excess of caution, and the Turks, an excess of Kurds. Impoverished Moscow and wealthy France see billions in Iraqi debt unpaid. Other European friends resent seeing their military irrelevance displayed. For all its malfeasance, however, Iran is a society where political evolution seems plausible. North Korea plays a reckless game fueled by the paranoia of its leadership. But it has no external designs, and past conduct suggests a willingness to rein in its most troublesome programs, for a price. Saddam's Iraq is in a class by itself. It has launched two wars against neighboring states and fired Scud missiles against a third. Saddam attempted to kill a former U.S. president and routinely violates "no-fly zones" established to limit his ability to annihilate his own people. Iraq has used chemical weapons on the battlefield and to quash domestic unrest. Saddam maintained a covert nuclear program and sought to develop biological weapons, harassing United Nation inspectors sent to enforce the ban. The compelling insight embraced by the decision to dislodge Saddam is that the war against terrorism cannot be won if the war against weapons of mass destruction is lost. Before the Persian Gulf War, military experts exaggerated Iraqi military power. In the event, Saddam's "battle-hardened" divisions were depleted by desertion, their morale shattered by indiscipline and American bombs. Save for a lucky Scud missile that crashed into military barracks in Dhahran, the United States lost more troops to "friendly fire" than to Iraqi guns. Today Iraq's army is even smaller, less well equipped, and less prepared than it was before the Persian Gulf War. And the U.S. advantage in highly accurate weapons—formidable then—is now overwhelming. Nor should the comfort of friends like Saudi Arabia be controlling. Their tolerance of the antics of Osama bin Laden and other terrorists operating against anyone save the royal family has been well reported, as has the vitriolic brand of Islam taught in Saudi-financed schools. Turkey has some legitimate concerns, but they will fade if Kurdish nationalism is held in check. As to NATO, its focus is Europe. Elsewhere, differences are common. We broke with our British and French friends over the 1956 Sinai campaign. There were differences too over Vietnam, and today, over Israel. But at the end of the day, NATO members too will cheer the fall of Saddam and relish the reduced threat his demise will signal.
March 18, 2002

[efnwriter]

Must Read

[ppaul]

A must.

[goldstategop]

Robert Zelnick worked for ABC NEWS for a number of years until he got fired for writting a politically incorrect expose of affirmative action. Good to see he's back in form and serving as a fellow with the Hoover Institution. Yup, long after the media Nervous Nellies have spilled tons on press ink and airtime warning how Iraq's going to turn into another Vietnam, Robert's words will stand the test of time. Indeed, soon the world will be asking, "Saddam, Who?"

[BigWaveBetty]

I was wondering if it was the same Zelnick. Didn't know he'd been fired since I haven't watced ABC News in so long.

His words will indeed stand the test of time.

Could I ask you please, do you know anything about SFGate.com? Seems I've read a few things from there that were on our side.

[connectthedots]

A statement of the obvious.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

North Korea plays a reckless game fueled by the paranoia of its leadership. But it has no external designs, and past conduct suggests a willingness to rein in its most troublesome programs, for a price.

This is so funny, it makes one ROTFLMAO (I like that). So... Mr. Wiseguy believes that N Korea has no 'external' designs. I guess taking over S Korea would be an 'internal design', right. And, given that, perhaps he could remind W that our GI's are there for no reason whatsoever, given that N Korea may have nukes or trying to make them but they are no problem since their leaders are nuts and they only want to take over S Korea and would gladly accept us giving us nukular technology.

Of course, China is not mentioned, because it didn't make W's 'axis of evil' list. And if W says it's not evil, that it is not and it's not some stupid pencil pusher at the Hoover's to decide who's evil and who's not. Because if W said that China was evil, than perhaps one would have noticed that China is in every single way like Iraq only 100 times more so. Not to mention that they got their nukes and the missiles to send them into our homes.

So, let's crack some towel heads' heads and feel good about it and JUST STOP TALKING ABOUT CHINA, OKAY? THEY ARE NOT EVIL, THEIR NUKES ARE FRIENDLY AND THEY ARE OUR FRIENDS. THAT'S WHY WE GAVE THEM A BASE AT LONG BEACH AND WE ALLOWED THEM TO CONTROL THE PANAMA CANAL.

[Trust but Verify]

Ok, your point is taken. Let's just march into Beijing! I mean, it would be a much bigger challenge than Iraq, but what the heck.

I think we'll have to deal with China in much the same way we dealt with Russia. Going to war against them is not an option.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Okay, so let's crack some towelheads because it's easy and let's allow, I mean help our stronger enemies get stronger beacuse... it's easier than opposing them?

[Trust but Verify]

I'm saying we have to take care of the immediate dangers and avoid spreading ourselves too thin. Do you think Bush and his military guys are just sitting around playing tiddlt winks? Just because we aren't confronting China doesn't mean we are ignoring them.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Iraq is not an immediate danger. In fact, Iraq is no danger at all - imagine a scenario where Iraq 'attacks' us (excuse me while I attempt to stop laughing). Saddam is one of old GHWB's friends who forgot to ask for explicit permission before moving into Kuwait.

Now China is a different story. They ARE an enemy and say so and they ARE a threat ans say so.

I'm sorry but wasting moral assets, goodwill and resources to place another Saddam-like character on the Iraqi throne, someone only slightly different from the current one, possibly more opressive, is an absolute and inexcusable waste.

Incidentally, I heard that one of the best safe heavens for Al-Queda is the Kurds territories not under Saddam's control. Apparently W is trying to help these friends of ours gain more 'freedom' within Iraq - so that they could play host to more Al-Queda?

Oh, and one more thing. There were big announcements the other day, telling everyone that the UK gov't was going to make public some evidence that Iraq trained or at least knew of what Usama was about. Where is it? Does anyone even remember that the UK was going to make that info public? Oh, well, that was two days ago, how could anyone be expected to remember.

I'd say the Chinese are mightly pleased with W.

[iconoclast]

Saddam is one of old GHWB's friends who forgot to ask for explicit permission before moving into Kuwait.

Bingo! You are apparently the only other freeper that remembers that little factoid.

Do you also remember/have any info on the story about the feather-headed ambassador to Iraq that aired at the time of Iraq War I but was fairly quickly squelched?

[Trust but Verify]

Yes, the British are going to make the info they have public. I guess they aren't operating on your timetable. Too bad.

[Trust but Verify]

Yes, her name was April Glaspie. But according to some, she isn't 'feather-headed' at all, but doing what the President told her to do.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Yes, the British are going to make the info they have public. I guess they aren't operating on your timetable. Too bad.

Okay, let's make sure we don't forget. Tomorrow is such a long time from now.

[Trust but Verify]

Hey, I just heard a guy on the radio make exactly the same argument against 'doing' Saddam as you did. Must be some libertarian talking points memo making the rounds.

[Trust but Verify]

Saddam is one of old GHWB's friends

This is an interesting point. I guess they're not friends anymore, considering Saddam tried to have GHW Bush offed a few years back.

I mean, wouldn't that sort of kill a friendship?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Hey, I just heard a guy on the radio make exactly the same argument against 'doing' Saddam as you did.

The fact that 'a guy on the radio' sees the light does not validate or invalidate my views. It doesn't make W invading a foreign country more right that it was when BJ Clinton decided it was time to slice Serbia, thus doing GHWB's work who warned sometimes between the Gulf War and his raising taxes that Serbia would not be allowed to invade Kosovo.

Note - I thought GHWB was a complete idiot at the time, as I happened to know that Kosovo was IN Serbia. Clearly, I was wrong. Kosovo was on our establishment's agenda. Thus Clinton took over where GHWB left and W is completing BJ Clinton's agenda.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

This is an interesting point. I guess they're not friends anymore,

I guess not. I do remember our normally hysterical media having calm and thorough debates on the forced ending of Saddam's life for years, almost on a daily basis. I don't know, but if they were talking about me that way, maybe I would have tried to do something.

[okie01]

"Iraq is not an immediate danger. In fact, Iraq is no danger at all - imagine a scenario where Iraq 'attacks' us (excuse me while I attempt to stop laughing)."

What makes you believe they haven't already?

Where do you think the anthrax came from?

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Where do you think the anthrax came from?

Frankly, I have no idea. I COULD have come from Iraq but, I guess, there's no proof it did. Any idea where the West Nile thing came from? Egypt maybe?