Posted on 10/16/2002 4:38:23 PM PDT by Utah Girl
The game is up for Saddam Hussein. A man who has lived by the sword will soon leave by the sword, and good riddance. Now that America and a growing number of others are gathering their forces, the key question is no longer whether we'll strike but what follows.
Saddam may play out his hand by resorting to his old tricks with international inspectors, but this time the United States won't be diddled. President Bush is sending troops and equipment to the Middle East for a reason: to drive him from power. Sometime after Ramadan ends in December, American warplanes are likely to drop their first calling cards over Baghdad.
Whatever one may think about the wisdom of this war, we should all give credit to the president for first seeking authorization from Congress and the United Nations. Some urged him to bypass both, but he wisely listened to other voices. The resounding approval he won last week on Capitol Hill–and the likely victory he will soon win in the U.N. Security Council–will enormously strengthen his hand.
The world is also learning that it's a mistake to underestimate the resolve and the political savvy of this president. Like Ronald Reagan, Bush's air of nonchalance is deceiving. Without breaking a sweat, he put the threat of Saddam squarely on the table and, slowly but surely, bent others to his will. That's leadership!
It would be a mistake, however, for the administration to assume that it has done all the work it needs to do in unifying people or that it now has a blank check. There will be at least three major phases to the enterprise ahead, and each will require effective, responsible stewardship.
Full disclosure. On Day 1 of any strike–or even before, as the CIA warned last week–Saddam and his allies in terror could lash out at us. Terrorists could reappear in our midst; our troops could be gassed; chemical missiles could hit Jerusalem; oilfields could burn. Presumably, our military is ready for each scenario. But, sad to say, the administration has not adequately prepared the public. It has yet to provide convincing evidence of "why now," and while most want to support the president out of patriotism, many are ambivalent. If things go badly, the public could easily turn on the president and accuse him of stampeding us into misery. That's why the administration must be open and candid every step of the way, telling us exactly what we face, so that people don't feel hoodwinked or bullied as in Vietnam.
The day after the war ends, we will be thrust into a second phase: We will "own" Iraq. Have you noticed that no one is talking about an "exit strategy"? That's because we will have to stay for years to come. Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution has estimated that we may need more than 200,000 troops on the ground in the first year and that our costs could range from $5 billion to $20 billion a year–if operations go smoothly. We are entering a region, however, that is notoriously unpredictable, and we will be undertaking our most significant nation-building since Germany and Japan. Are we prepared? Have we thought this through? Can we hold Iraq together? Find a Thomas Jefferson Hussein to replace Saddam? The Clinton administration hesitated to go after Saddam militarily because it didn't feel confident that it had the answers. Again, we must look to the Bush administration to air these issues in public and ensure we act prudently.
There is a third phase to this Iraqi enterprise that is perhaps even more important: Once in Baghdad, what role will America play in the rest of the Middle East? Administration leaders widely assume that the installation of a friendly regime in Iraq will bring dramatic, long-term benefits. Not only would we acquire a controlling voice over oil supplies, but the replacement of Saddam with American military bases in Iraq would be a shock to radical regimes, weakening their power and support of terrorists. Moderates, it is hoped, would gain greater authority in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and among Palestinians. Even the doves of peace and democracy might hover nearby.
Clearly, we should work toward that future. But it would be profoundly wrong to let a vision of what might be seduce us into the pursuit of an American Empire. There is a coterie of people in and near the administration who want to see us exercise our military muscle to dominate the region; they think we should play sheriff, making up rules to suit us, and some even talk of sending troops next to Iran or Syria. The president himself has spoken expansively. But Congress last week voted authorization for Iraq only–days after Bush assured the nation that he sees the threat from Iraq as "unique." Most Americans will remain united behind the president if he pursues Saddam with prudence, openness, and diligence. If, however, we seem headed toward empire-building and an abandonment of international law, our unity will evaporate.
It doesn't impress me much that Bush isn''t breaking a sweat. The United States is, by a very wide margin, the most powerful nation on earth -- militarily, the most powerful nation in human history. What I find more noteworthy is that Saddam Hussein isn't breaking a sweat, even though the most powerful man on earth has publicly targeted him for destruction. Not only is he not breaking a sweat, but he is still publicly endorsing the 9/11 attacks and praising the leadership of the supposed mastermind of that operation, Osama bin Laden. Now that is interesting, isn't it?
<Snort> David Gergen, erstwhile Clinton aide,
rides the rhetoric rocket right to the bottom.
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.