Posted on 02/03/2003 12:44:26 PM PST by GailA
COLUMN: M.D. Harmon
Those seeking a 'smoking gun' had better hope they don't get it
Copyright © 2003 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
The United States and a constantly increasing number of allies are coming closer and closer to holding a despicable tyrant responsible for his past actions and rendering him unable to continue them both at home and abroad.
So, some people are upset. An entire dovecote of "anti-war activists" (at least for this war, and for this president - they were far less dovish when Bill Clinton attacked Serbia) is chirping its alarm over the fact that we have a president who understands that his principal task is the protection of our lives and interests.
Their exaggerations are so many, and their contact with reality so flimsy, that's it's hard to know where to start to hold them to account. Let's start with the big rally that was held in Washington last month.
I have a friend who lives in northern Virginia, a retired State Department officer who loves his country and who protested the Vietnam War in the '60s. Seized with serious doubts about the president's plans for Iraq, he crossed the Potomac to see if the rally would support his qualms.
He hasn't changed his mind about Iraq, but he was aghast at the march. Here's what he e-mailed me:
"I went to the March for Peace for three reasons: to register my anti-war views, and to voice my views on administration policy, and to show my niece and nephew (who came along) that the United States is a peaceful country with millions of citizens united for peace. But then I saw with my own eyes the hypocrisy and vicious hatred that so many marchers had for America. Mike, those people were openly anti-American. I saw it with my own eyes. You could cut the anti-Ameri- canism with a knife. . . . The ANSWER event was not a peace march - it was a virulent anti-American march. . . .
"For the demonstrators there is some kind of moral equivalence between us and Saddam."
Not terribly surprising, considering that ANSWER, the group that sponsored the march, is affiliated with an unreconstructed hard-left Marxist fringe that in the past has expressed admiration for the murderous Joseph Stalin, dictator Kim Jong-Il of North Korea and war crimes indictee Slobodan Milosevik.
Oh, but the marchers didn't necessarily support that? OK, think about who would go to a civil rights march sponsored by the Ku Klux Klan, and then wonder why ANSWER's sponsorship was fine by those attendees.
Next, there are all the people who keep demanding more proof that Saddam Hussein has both evil intentions and the means to carry them out. True, there have been no Cuban-missile-crisis photos - yet - but there are at least two major talks they haven't heard yet, either. One will come this Wednesday, when Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks to the United Nations, and the other will come after that, when President Bush addresses the nation again.
Anybody who doesn't think Saddam is a threat both to his neighbors and the West has not been paying attention - deliberately, I believe, because U.N. inspectors themselves say he has tons of lethal stuff he won't account for - but those speeches should satisfy all but the same people who attended the "March for Peace."
What is truly dangerous is the demand by some that they must see a "smoking gun" before they'll back Bush. In that, they show less support for America than the leaders of Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic, who sent a letter last week proclaiming "New Europe's" strong support for Bush. France and Germany had better start worrying about the perils of unilateralism.
In truth, what would a "smoking gun" be? Well, it might be a mushroom cloud forming over Manhattan; or a radioactive "dirty bomb" ex- ploding a few blocks upwind of the Capitol or the White House; or letters full of finely milled anthrax being sent not to a few congressional offices but to hundreds; or a thousand vials of smallpox infecting tens of thousands of people, with a death rate of 30 percent or more among the unvaccinated victims.
Folks, we don't need those kinds of smoking guns. We don't even need them drawn from their holsters. We may not be able to find each and every member of al-Qaida yet, but as the president said Tuesday, we've found a number of them, and they won't be bothering us any more. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, hasn't been reliably heard from since December 2001, and could be among the group Bush mentioned.
It's no easy decision to go to war, and I even have some sympathy for Bill Clinton, who has been strongly criticized for not dealing with terrorism and Saddam after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and subsequent terror attacks abroad.
But that was all prior to Sept. 11. We've seen two of our tallest buildings fall in fire and ruin, seen people jump from the 80th floor because that was better than being incinerated in their offices, seen our military headquarters lethally attacked.
Still, you may want more than this. If you're patient for a week or a month, I think you'll get it.
Myself, I've seen and heard enough. Saddam delendus est.
- M.D. Harmon, an editorial writer and editor, can be reached
at mharmon@pressherald.com or 791-6482.
Why aren't more people pointing this out: So, some people are upset. An entire dovecote of "anti-war activists" (at least for this war, and for this president - they were far less dovish when Bill Clinton attacked Serbia) is chirping its alarm over the fact that we have a president who understands that his principal task is the protection of our lives and interests.
If you can't convince anyone with this, then they just don't want to listen.
I believe it all except that he's a threat. There's undoubtedly WMD in Iraq: he has used WMD, he has continued to develop them, etc. But it's hardly a threat to us or even to his neighbors. There are plenty of defensive measures if he attacks anyone directly. As for giving them to terrorists, there is absolutely no hard evidence for any such thing.
He make claims like that to stay in power. I ignore them and so should you.
I hadn't. Has his son-in-law been struck down by Iraqi agents or had anthrax mailed to his house? That would be cause for concern. Otherwise, all the stories from defectors are simply their way of helping themselves to power over Iraq by getting us to do their dirty work.
Maybe the info in this lawsuit on Find Law will change your mind...
Ashton, et al. v. al Qaeda, et al.: Complaint (PDF) Lawsuit claiming a 9/11 link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Sept. 3, 2002
The file is in slow loading .pdf format, but it is an interesting read. Some excerpts:
39. Upon information and belief, there have been numerous meetings between IRAQI Intelligence agents and high-ranking AL QAEDA terrorists to plan terror attacks. Once such meeting occurred in 1992, when ZAWAHIRI (EGYPTIAN ISLAMIC JIHAD leader and AL QAEDA officer) met with IRAQI INTELLIGENCE agents in Baghdad, IRAQ over several days. An IRAQI serving with the TALIBAN who fled Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, was captured in Kurdistan and has corroborated this meeting and confirmed that IRAQI contacts with AL QAEDA began in 1992.Or if that doesn't do it...check out the following links:During the early 1990s, Sudan’s Sheikh Hassan al-Tourabi of the Islamic National Front arranged meetings between BIN-LADEN and IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials. BIN LADEN met with FARUQ AL-HIJAZI, an IRAQI INTELLIGENCE agent in the Sudan who would later head IRAQI INTELLIGENCE for SADDAM HUSSEIN. BIN LADEN again met with IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officers in 1994 and 1995 in the Sudan. At these meetings, BIN-LADEN and IRAQI INTELLIGENCE secret service director FARUQ AL-HIJAZI agreed to work together on terrorist projects directed against the U.S.
55. From 1996 until 2001, BIN LADEN with the financial and logistical support of OMAR and others in the TALIBAN and IRAQ and IRAQI INTELLIGENCE, created, supplied and operated at least five training camps in order to create an “Islamic Foreign Legion” capable of attacking their enemies throughout the world. These camps trained men from 15 nations in guerrilla warfare, terrorist activities, rocket warfare, demolition and bombing, including the use of mines, grenades, TNT, nitroglycerine and plastic explosives. Classes were also given in “how to kill a policeman” and “traps, murder and terrorist moves.”
57. In February 1997, BIN LADEN publicly expressed his support for IRAQ in its conflict with the United States stating:
“The hearts of the Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president for American conduct towards IRAQ.”59. IRAQ upon information and belief, agreed to supply arms to AL QAEDA and provide AL QAEDA with access to and training in the use of chemical and biological weapons and agreed to instruct AL QAEDA terror trainers at its Salman Pak camp in Baghdad that contained a Boeing 707 used to practice hijacking. IRAQ also agreed to supply AL QAEDA terrorists with new identities and passports from Yemen and the United Arab Emirates.60. AL QAEDA agreed to provide protection from political opponents to IRAQ and SADDAM HUSSEIN, and to commit assassinations and other acts of violence to create instability in regions of IRAQ, particularly Kurdistan, to assist the regime of SADDAM HUSSEIN. AL QAEDA further agreed to provide trained terrorists, assassins and martyrs to carry out terror attacks in concert with IRAQ against their common enemies, including the United States.
64. Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of BIN LADEN’s senior military commanders, MUHAMMAD ABU-ISLAM and ABDULLAH QASSIM, visited Baghdad for discussions with SADDAM HUSSEIN’s son -- QUSAY HUSSEIN -- the “czar” of IRAQI INTELLIGENCE.
65. QUSAY HUSSEIN’s participation in those meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. Upon information and belief, as a direct result of these meetings, IRAQ again made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, financial support and weapons and explosives to AL QAEDA.
66. IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials met with BIN LADEN in Afghanistan several more times. A second group of BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA operatives from Saudi Arabia were then trained by IRAQI INTELLIGENCE in IRAQ to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia and other countries, which they later accomplished in an effort to carry out future terrorist acts of violence. A third group of BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA operatives received a month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training from IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials later in the Summer of 1998.
67. Despite philosophical and religious differences with SADDAM HUSSEIN, BIN LADEN continually sought to strengthen and reinforce the support he and AL QAEDA received from IRAQ. In mid-July 1998, BIN LADEN sent Dr. AYMAN AL-ZAWAHIRI, the Egyptian co-founder of AL QAEDA, to IRAQ to meet with senior Iraqi officials, including Iraqi vice president TAHA YASSIN RAMADAN. Upon information and belief, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss and plan a joint strategy for a terrorist campaign against the United States.
69. During the July 1998 visit ZAWAHIRI toured an IRAQI military base and nuclear and chemical weapons facility near al-Fallujah in IRAQ and upon information and belief, observed training by IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials of AL QAEDA operatives at the al-Nasiriyah military and chemical weapons facility in IRAQ.
79. Following the December 1998 air strikes on IRAQ, SADDAM HUSSEIN dispatched FARUQ AL-HIJAZI to Kandahar, Afghanistan in order to meet with BIN LADEN and plot their revenge.
81. To demonstrate IRAQ’s commitment to BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA, HIJAZI presented BIN LADEN with a pack of blank, official Yemeni passports, supplied to IRAQI INTELLIGENCE from their Yemeni contacts. HIJAZI’s visit to Kandahar was followed by a contingent of IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials who provided additional training and instruction to BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA operatives in Afghanistan. These Iraqi officials included members of “Unit 999,” a group of elite IRAQI INTELLIGENCE officials who provided advanced sabotage and infiltration training and instruction to AL QAEDA operatives.
82. At that meeting, upon information and belief, BIN LADEN, AL QAEDA and IRAQ agreed to join efforts in a detailed, coordinated plan for a protracted terrorist war against the United States.
84. IRAQ maintains an advanced chemical and biological weapons program and is one of only three countries in the world producing a highly developed weaponized anthrax. Some time during or after 1998, IRAQ agreed to help BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA develop a laboratory in Afghanistan designed to produce anthrax.
85. In addition to the al-Nasiriyah and Salman Pak training camps, by January 1999, BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA operatives were being trained by IRAQI INTELLIGENCE and military officers at other training camps on the outskirts of Baghdad.
86. In January 1999, IRAQ began reorganizing and mobilizing IRAQI INTELLIGENCE front operations throughout Europe in support of BIN LADEN and AL QAEDA. HAQI ISMAIL, believed to be a member of the IRAQ’S MUKHABARAT Secret Service, left IRAQ to train in an Afghanistan AL QAEDA camp. ISMAIL was believed to be a liason between IRAQ, the TALIBAN and AL QAEDA and was rewarded with a position in the TALIBAN Foreign Ministry.
103. On July 21, approximately six weeks before the September 11 th attacks, IRAQI columnist Mulhalhal reported that BIN LADEN was making plans to “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
104. Mulhalhal’s July 21 article further informed that BIN LADEN would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” Upon information and belief, this references a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center. This interpretation is further bolstered by another reference to New York as “[BIN LADEN] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) identifying New York, New York as a target.
105. Mulhalhal further indicated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer.” (Emphasis supplied) This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon. The information was reported in an IRAQI newspaper who’s editor-in-chief serves as secretary to UDAY HUSSEIN’S Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed IRAQI admiration and support for BIN LADEN’s plans and its appearance in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by SADDAM HUSSEIN himself.
106. All IRAQI news media is strictly controlled and censored by the government of SADDAM HUSSEIN and is under the direct oversight of UDAY HUSSEIN. Various members of IRAQI intelligence work at and control the content of each and every newspaper published inside IRAQ.
107. The information contained in Mulhalhal’s published statements were known prior to the events of September 11 th , and that Mulhalhal has ties to IRAQI intelligence, demonstrates foreknowledge of the planned attacks by BIN LADEN and indicates support by IRAQI co-conspirators.
110. According to U.S. and foreign intelligence officials, in the spring of 2000, IRAQI INTELLIGENCE agents met with September 11 th pilot hijackers ZAID SAMIR JARRAH and MARWAN AL-SHEHHI in Dubai, UAE in order to advance the hijacking of U.S. aircraft to commit terrorist acts. Not long after the meeting, AL-SHEHHI entered the United States on May 29 and JARRAH entered on June 27, to begin preparations for attacks.
133. Instruction documents on an artillery weapon known as the “Super Gun” were found in AL QAEDA camps when they were captured by U.S. forces in the winter of 2001-2002. IRAQ is the only state known to have purchased and assembled the super gun, a weapon so large it must be constructed in segments. It has a range of several hundred miles.
Rice: Iraq Providing Shelter, Chemical Weapons Help to Al QaedaAnsar Al-Isam: Iraq’s Al-Qaeda Connection
Salman Pak: Iraq's Smoking Gun Link to 9-11?
Saddam killed Abu Nidal over al-Qa'eda row
New evidence links Saddam, bin Laden
Arafat-Saddam-Bin Laden Links Surface
Saddam and Osama: A Long History
Saddam 'sends troops to help bin Laden men'
Iraqi Funds, Training Fuel Islamic Terror Group
Alert by Saddam points to Iraq - 23 Sep 2001 Article
Mounting Evidence of Iraqi Link to Terror Attacks
Iraqi defector tells of terrorist training camp
You believe he has WMDs, but you don't consider him a threat because "if he attacks anyone directly", there are defensive measures which can be taken.
Um. By the time he has attacked, with those WMDs that you and I both agree he has, we'll be talking about thousands dead or more. By then it's kinda too late; the point is that we don't want to let it get to that point.
As for giving them to terrorists, there is absolutely no hard evidence for any such thing.
Slight correction: you haven't seen any hard evidence for any such thing. You aren't periodically given personal briefings regarding classified information, are you?
Anyway, we can try to disarm now or we can wait till there's "hard evidence" that Saddam will supply or has supplied terrorists with WMDs. The problem is, there's not much conceivable "hard evidence" which can convince certain folks, short of a pile of dead bodies.
Again, we're trying not to let it get to that point. Better safe than sorry.
Should we take your sage advice and "ignore" them?
In case you havn't had your head away from the radio (NPR I would venture), Saddam had his son-in-law assasinated. But, then again, There is no proof... There is also the matter of the Iraqi ambassador to the UN that is missing in action....after going home to Iraq for Ramadan. But in your world that has no meaning, does it??...If the defecting bodyguard has only told 1 tenth of 1 percent of truth, then we are in deep kim-chee. It only gets worse if there is linkage between Kim Jong Il and Saddam. And, OBTW it looks like there is... but, NO, No impact to the US. is there?? No you strike me as the live and let live kinda person that is willing tocompromise on anything. Go to DU Palmer your attitude would be appreciated there. Not here.
Semper Disgusted
Again, we're trying not to let it get to that point. Better safe than sorry.
I feel safer knowing my military is kept in reserve for a real threat. Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is, rather than having it disintegrate into warring factions, some supported by Iran, possibly spreading fighting into Turkey. Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea. We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.
That's not what I believe. I want to use my military in the most practical possible ways. For example, I don't think nation building in Afghanistan is practical nor will it be successful and that is a lot easier than what we want to undertake in Iraq.
Instead I would small squads to deal with terrorists wherever they need to, based on the best intelligence possible. I also believe our intelligence has done a great job defending us against terrorism since 9/11.
It's very touching how you're willing to forgive any involvement Saddam may have had in such training, as long as the technology / ideas used in the attack which resulted was sufficiently lo-tech. "Yeah, maybe Saddam provided a training base for 'em, but really, they could've thought that up themselves anyway. So let's cut Saddam some slack."
To me, the important questions are, Is Saddam our enemy? Does he try to attack us? Or help people to attack us? If so, then I don't give a rat's ass what the surrogates use to attack us; it's the attacking that's the issue here.
It's not clear what the issue is, to you. Besides making sure we don't attack Saddam, of course.
1....An entire dovecote of "anti-war activists" (at least for this war, and for this president - they were far less dovish when Bill Clinton attacked Serbia)...
Similarly, there is a vast inconsistency on the part of the War Party: they vehemently protested Clinton - and rightly so - but line up behind Bush. Smacks of pure party politics.
2. He points out what a lot of the GOP/War Party crowd seems unable to recognize: those opposed to war with Iraq are not a monolithic bunch. Like the author's friend, I oppose this action in Iraq, but I want nothing to do with the marxists, socialists and leftists that make up the bulk of these war protests.
The War Party's labeling any differing opinion as "un-American" and "un-patriotic" is both wrong, insulting, and, frankly, bad rhetoric.
And Saddam (who you agree has WMDs) is not a "real threat" because.....
Also somewhat safer (or less apprehensive) keeping Iraq the way it is,
"the way it is"? You mean, cheating on anti-WMD resolutions and working hard to try to develop nukes? That kind of thing?
Finally, there's other sources for WMD's for terrorists, for example if they have money they can buy them from North Korea.
Yes, that is also a problem.
We certainly can't afford to attack every country that could possibly supply WMD's to terrorists.
Probably not, at least not all at the same time. This is not an argument for attacking none of them, though. One thing at a time.
Under the terms which ended the last Gulf War, Iraq was required to do a lot of things that it has failed to do. This failure constitutes grounds for us going to war based on the previous agreements. In effect, it means that the Gulf War never ended.
On the other hand, if we were to want to go to war against Iran, for example, we would have to prove conclusively that they were directly involved in an attack on this country, as was manifestly true in the case of Afghanistan. Even then, after all this time, it would be an uphill fight.
But no such proof is necessary against Iraq. We can go into Iraq just because they have not kept the terms they signed ten years ago.
To which I say, "Works for me!" In order to combat Islamic terrorism, we are going to have root out these evil regimes wherever we find them. Iraq is as good a place to start as any.
Once Iraq has descended into chaos and we give up and leave, the religious nuts that end up ruling it will make Saddam look like a nice guy. Those are the people behind the two WTC attacks and this war will strengthen them in two primary ways: they will have more people joining them, and they will have a base of operations to work out of that may include a large part of the Middle East and South Asia (Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc).
I worry about instability, unpredictability, popular uprisings such as voting for Islamic law in the new Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey and elsewhere.
Because the cases of Yugoslavia and Iraq are so similar?
I meant to say that it is laughable that anyone would train anyone else in how to hijack aircraft by slicing throats. That requires indoctrination of the kind that small groups of religious fanatics are able to provide, similar to cults: controlling the person's life completely, indoctrinating them 24/7, etc. The claim that Saddam did that at a base in the desert is ridiculous.
But, and yet, it happened, did it not? (I mean, someone trained them.) You are arguing with reality and declaring it "laughable". I don't know what this proves other than that reality does not impress you all that much.
That requires indoctrination of the kind that small groups of religious fanatics are able to provide, similar to cults: controlling the person's life completely, indoctrinating them 24/7, etc. The claim that Saddam did that at a base in the desert is ridiculous.
I don't see why, and I don't know what your opinion is based on, other than some over-confident hunches that you seem to have about everything.
Saddam Hussein may hate the US, and I have no doubt he has MWD. But the man has been in power for 30 years; it's a tough place to be in power that long, so he's not stupid. He is not going to attack the US. The only situation where he would use WMD against the US is if he sees American troops crossing his desert, charging toward Baghdad. So we're giving him the opportunity.
I would love to believe the Bush Administration has linked Saddam to the 9-11 attacks. But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I wish the war were about oil. If George W Bush were to say, "We're tired of dicking around with environmentalists in Alaska, and we were real pissed when Saddam switched to the Euro instead of the US Greenback as his preferred method of payment, and we want his oil, and we're going to come and take it." I would whole-heartedly support that.
Actually, they are similar in this respect: both are instances where the US has no right intruding.
We all know that there are many places where terrorists can find support: namely almost any place where there are Islamics and enough chaos or local autonomy to protect the terrorists. This includes parts of Pakistan, Indonesia, the drug cartel areas in South America, numerous countries in South Asia like Chechnia, etc. "Evil regimes" is a convenient substitute for the much messier and harder problem of evil areas.
The best way to fight terrorism is to directly confront terrorists wherever they are. But finding them is an even harder problem and the chaos that would result from a civil war in Iraq and neighboring areas would make that job harder.
After we kill/arrest Saddam and his family and top henchmen, we're not just going to "give up and leave". While no concrete plans for administration have been made just yet, I believe that a U.S. or NATO general will end up temporarily administering the government (like MacArthur in Japan), with a popularly elected government to come within the next 2-5 years. Heck, they may even decide to split up Iraq into two or three separate sovereign countries. But we're going to have a military presence there for a while. And once we are in control, Iraq will be permantly removed as a possible base of any terrorist operations. And the Islamofascists won't be strengthened by our victory any more than Al-Queda has been strengthened by our operations in Afghanistan.
First of all it's already known that he made an attempt on our President's life. In a similar vein you speak as if it is known that Saddam has had no involvement in various other terrorist attacks against us. Second, you're awfully confident for a person who is necessarily uninformed (as are we all). I do so hope that you're right. I don't think it's a good gamble, though.
But the fact that Bush is not using the authority granted him by Congress in fighting the War on Terrorism indicates to me that he has not been able to develop a link (and in fact, the Bush Administration has quit using this as an excuse).
I don't understand; in the fall Congress gave him a war powers resolution and if/when we attack it will be under those auspices, no? The fact that we haven't attacked yet doesn't necessarily mean Bush "can't" link Saddam to terror; it may just be an indication that the generals have told him the timing isn't quite right.
A couple of tangential thoughts: it is amusing that so many that call themselves Conservatives rightly disparage the UN and all it stands for, but are more than happy to use violation of contrived UN agreements as an excuse to go to war.
I agree. I'd just as soon see us attack Iraq with no reference to the UN whatsoever. Happy now?
Anyway, I still would like an answer to my actual query to you, which was about the supposed hypocrisy of a conservative disagreeing with the war against Yugoslavia but agreeing with potential war against Iraq. What do those two situations have in common, that I am logically required to support the former if I support the latter? Just wondering.
I don't see how anyone could believe that training was needed in how to storm planes with box-cutters. The pilot training was required and was done here financed mostly by Saudis.
I don't see why, and I don't know what your opinion is based on, other than some over-confident hunches that you seem to have about everything.
What raises my confidence is reading stories about Salman Pak. Or listening to the President describe Iraqi tortures. Whether these stories are true or not, it is all standard war propaganda and has nothing to do with whether the war is in our interests.
Because the situation is not symmetric. I'll explain. One side is adopting a pose which can be described as "universal", while the other isn't.
To say "I'm anti-war" is a pretty "universal" statement, is it not? It makes no allowances for particular exceptions. But that is precisely what the protesters say; they speak in universal terms such as, "war is ALWAYS the last resort", "war is a failure of diplomacy", "war is hell and I'm against it, there has got to be a better way". They are saying, or pretending, that their opposition in this particular case (U.S. military attacking Saddam's ruling regime of Iraq) is something which proceeds from a more general principle, namely, "war is bad and I'm anti-war".
Given this, it's quite fair to evaluate whether, in their past statements, they lived up to the general principles they are pretending to follow. That's where Yugoslavia comes in. Were these "anti-war" folks so "anti-war" in that case? Some of them were, actually. But most of them were not. It's a pretty clear-cut case of hypocrisy.
Now, you simply can't go in the other direction as easily, and this is because the "let's attack Saddam" faction is making no such claim to "universality". It's not like we're saying "let's attack Saddam because war is good" :-) We're saying: let's attack Saddam because the particularities of this situation appear to make it the only course of action.
Bringing up Yugoslavia against this statement is, therefore, irrelevant, unless Yugoslavia and Iraq have something significant in common with respect to the reasons the pro-war folks are giving for attacking Saddam.
What are those reasons? Basically the argument boils down to a pre-emptive strike against a madman who is our enemy, probably has WMDs, and has the type of temperament to use them against us or our friends.
But the preceding paragraph simply doesn't apply to Milosevic (except for the "madman" part). Unless you are prepared to argue otherwise by saying what Yugoslavia and Iraq supposedly have in common. Which is why I asked.
Undoubtedly true. So do a lot of other countries.
2. He would want nothing more than to destroy us, especially after Desert Storm.
Undoubtedly true. So do a lot of other countries.
3. He knows it would be suicide to engage us in an open war.
Absolutely true. He is not going to do anything that would provoke us into attacking him openly.
4. What better way to attack us than through phantom surrogates?
How about waiting until US forces are racing across the desert and then launching bio- or chem-bombs at them?
1. Saddam loathes the U.S. and everything we stand for.
2. He would want nothing more than to destroy us, especially after Desert Storm.
3. He knows it would be suicide to engage us in an open war.
4. What better way to attack us than through phantom surrogates?
1. Can be said of others.
2. True except he has a higher priorities of staying alive, staying in power, exerting more control in the Middle East, etc
3. True
4. Put it this way: what is more likely to inspire a terrorist on a 9/11 style mission: the religious glory from a lifetime of indoctrination or some cash from Saddam?
So how do you fight terrorism in Northern Iraq? How do you confront these terrorists where they are, when your enemy runs the country?
In order to eliminate terrorist safe havens in Iraq, we will have to root out the regime and install a responsible government. This will not be easy or cheap, but it is not like we have a choice. And once Iraq is done, it's on to the next.
But after three or four iterations of this, the local thugs might come to realize that supporting terrorists is hazardous to one's health.
Look, on a very basic level you are being ridiculous. Those dudes didn't just get on planes and wing-it or improvise. They had a plan. How/when/where did they conceive of that plan? Somewhere, in some way, and from someone's mind did that plan issue.
That being said, I'm not arguing here that the plan was in any way sophisticated or anything. But you're missing the frickin' point.
Let's suppose Saddam set aside a desert base to "train" young brainwashed men regarding how to sneak up behind Americans on the street and shoot them in the back of the head. Now, OKAY, you and I could both agree to sneer at such "training" and scoff and say "gee that's unnecessary, don't they already know how to point a handgun and pull the trigger? What's to 'train'? Where's the challenge in that? Ha ha ha!".
But the point is that, even in doing something so pointless, Saddam would be proving himself to be our enemy! He would be actively trying to attack us and kill us in some way. It wouldn't lighten my heart all that much just because the "way" he tries to attack us is so stupid and low-tech. That's beside the point. The point is the active attempt to attack us, and not how the attack is carried out.
And again, what you seem to be saying is that as long as the training was low-tech and required little investment or overhead, you're willing to let it all slide with a big guffaw. This is what I referred to as "touching". A less charitable word for it would be "stupid".
I would love to see a discussion of those possibilities and the risks involved in them. That's what disturbs me most about the rush to war, we aren't talking about what long term benefit it will have versus the long term risks.
What about Northern Pakistan where we apparantly let large numbers of Taliban and AQ escape to? The answer, unfortunately, is not much without risking the whole of Pakistan including its nukes getting into radical Islamic hands.
I agree with you in that I would like to see these things discussed openly a little more as well. But why do you feel that we are "rushing" into war? I would argue that we have given Saddam more than enough to time to obey the U.N. mandated resolutions that were clearly laid out. I would even argue that we are dragging our feet almost to the point of concern. Our current window of opportunity for executing this operation is rapidly getting shorter and shorter with each passing day.
Rush to war, rush to war, rush to war...
I'm sorry but nowadays I have to call a foul when I see this bogus charge being unthinkingly tossed out there. A frickin' year and a half of war talk does not constitute a "rush", sorry. There's a statute of limitations regarding just how long you can keep using the phrase "rush to war", and I have to say: given that it's OVER FIVE HUNDRED DAYS after I saw the first "no war on Iraq" protest sign (right after 9/11), the time has run out.
It's the "war" part that bothers you, not the "rush" part. Drop the disingenuous "rush to war" line. After about a million repetitions in a thousand and one op-ed pieces over the course of a year and a half, it's time to put that hackneyed phrase to bed, along with "doesn't rise to the level" and "it's the economy stupid". It's a dishonest, BS phrase and you know it.
Are you saying it is more consistent to oppose war, or to support it? I think the flaw in your argument - and I've mentioned this before - is that you lump all of those who oppose the war into one, monolithic bunch. That is just as wrong as lumping those that supported both efforts into one pile.
Speaking for myself, I opposed both the efforts in the Balkans and in the Middle East. Missing in both cases were clear objectives, exit strategies and long-term plans. I was right in the Balkans. UN "peacekeepers" (don't you have to have peace to start with, in order to keep it? never mind) have been there for 10-12 years now and there is now sign of their returning home anytime soon. I thought it would establish a horrible precedent for American foreign policy, and one that would only lead to resentment of America abroad. I was right.
I see the same thing happening in Iraq. I predict we will be there forever, even after we oust Saddam and establish something like democracy. In a region and culture mired in the 6th century and that cannot handle anything like democracy, this will lead to even more terrorist attacks, more resentment of America, and more lost American troops.
I also predict we will not be greeted with open arms like all the media and the administration is saying. I suspect the Iraqis will resent more the Americans telling them how to do things than they will Saddam Hussein.
Finally, I hope you note that none of my arguments hinge on "war is ALWAYS the last resort", "war is a failure of diplomacy", "war is hell and I'm against it, there has got to be a better way", or overall concern for oppressed people. I frankly don't give a damn about them. I am concerned, however that American lives are going to be lost and wasted.
The best thing America can do is heed the advice of George Washington: avoid foreign entanglements and enchanting alliances.
Yeah, the small squad approached worked so well in Somalia that we should keep using it...
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.