Those seeking a 'smoking gun' had better hope they don't get it

Press Herald ^ | 2/3/03 | M.D. Harmon (Maine)

[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.

[gridlock]

Technically, in a standoff, no one fires

I don't know if I would count on that in this particular case.

It's an open-ended war.

That is unfortunate but true.

But it is open-ended war whether we fight it here or there.

If we do nothing, the Jihadis are not going to leave us alone.

So if the war must be fought, we should fight it in a way that makes sense, and in a way that can lead to a positive outcome.

Plowing the Iraq (or some other) regime under and planting a liberal democracy in the Middle East is the only way there is going to be an alternative to the current Islamo-fascist dictatorships that occupy every square inch of that part of the world (excepting Israel). Since we have a pre-standing agreement that allows us to invade Iraq, they get to go first.

Who knows. Maybe they will be the last. Maybe they will be the first domino in the chain that topples the ME dictatorships and leads to a new birth of freedom in this part of the world. I wouldn't count on it, but it could happen.

And if not, there's always Syria. Or Iran. Or Yemen. But eventually, critical mass will be reached and that part of the world will change for the better.

It's hard, brutal, bloody work. But it's not as if we have any choice. If you want to view the huge smoking crater in lower Manhattan, you can stay in my guest room.

[Trust but Verify]

Right. They serve him only under threat. there are not many outside his inner circle that are willing to die for him. Take that to the bank.

[ravingnutter]

Has his son-in-law been struck down by Iraqi agents...

Actually, yes he has...

Saddam murdered his son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, who revealed Saddam's chemical and biological warfare plans in late 1995. From CNN:

Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid and his brother Saddam, defected to Jordan and then returned to Iraq last February (1996). They were murdered by members of Saddam's extended clan, and pronounced traitors by Saddam himself. CNN story

[Cacophonous]

If we do nothing, the Jihadis are not going to leave us alone.

Now you are starting to make sense.

If I read you correctly, you are advocating ridding the world of the radical ragheads -- the Jihadists -- because, among other things, their culture and values irreconcilably clash with our (Western) culture and values. Or if we don't rid the world of them, at least keep them squashed.

That's fine. I have no problem with that. I have no love for any of them. That would be an effort with a clearly defined goal, and a quantifiable endpoint. If that's the case, drive on.

But that is not what we are doing. If that were the case, we wouldn't be screwing around with this UN inspection process BS, we wouldn't be trying to cozy up to all the other Arab nations...we would bomb until we are done. This whole nonsense of a "War on Terror" would not apply. We wouldn't be concerned with "terrorists", a bunch that includes Arabs, Irishmen, South Americans, American eco-terrorist tree-hugger sorts, a bunch of whackoes throughout the far east...an endless (and that's the problem) list of unfriendlies.

We would be concerned with Arabs, a far more finite set. And easy to identify.

This nonsense about establishing "democracy" in a region that is stuck in the 6th Century, and that cannot -- religiously, culturally or mentally-- handle anything like self-rule is doomed. So the way to do it is to eradicate the culture. Fine by me.

But we won't do that. Our leaders are tied to political correctness and the UN, and lack the cojones to break away (and I mean every leader since Woodrow Wilson, with the possible exception of Reagan, and draw no distinction in the parties).

It's funny: even those claiming to be Conservatives, and who rightly scorn the UN, are using the very processes by the very organization they scorn as the hammer. Where is the consistency?

In other words, we don't know why we are fighting, who we are fighting, or when we will be done. Kinda like Vietnam.

Another acceptable reason is to get "stuff"--oil, the water rights that Iraq controls for the region...things to increase our wealth. I would have no problem with that. But we're not doing that either.

[gridlock]

We differ on the ultimate end-point.

I would not advocate eradication of the culture. Those days are gone. Not really practical, anyway, to kill that many people.

Our best hope is to develop self-governing liberal democracies in the region. I agree that the "raw material" is poor, and the people are ill-equipped to deal with modern self-rule. The process will be long. But do we have any choice, really?

As for pussy-footing with the UN, I chalk that up to playing the games that let us do what we need to do. Due to an accident of history, we have the authority we need to invade and conquer Iraq. As far as I can see, that is the only reason we are there rather than, say, Syria.

But when the time comes, I'm pretty sure somebody will volunteer to be next.

[Cacophonous]

Due to an accident of history, we have the authority we need to invade and conquer Iraq. As far as I can see, that is the only reason we are there rather than, say, Syria.

One other reason: Israel.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I didn't say we had to predict them or plan for them all before we could start a war, only that we must recognize that a war, unlike the current sanctions, can spillover into other countries, can turn into a quagmire, can result in destruction of oil supplies.

"We" do recognize that. Bush does, I'm sure. You think he doesn't? Based on what, exactly? This is that haughty ignorant arrogance I keep talking about. You, to Bush, on the internet: "You don't have a plan!!!!" Laugh-out-loud funny.

War needs to be avoided for the simple reason that it has unpredictable consequences.

Quite the turnaround in the span of one message. The previous sentence contains: "I didn't say we had to predict them or plan for them all before we could start a war". But now, in this sentence, it turns out that we can't start the war after all ("war needs to be avoided") precisely because "it has unpredictable consequences".

This is exactly what I was talking about. Hate to break it to you, but all wars have unpredictable consequences. In fact all human endeavors have unpredictable consequences. That's life. Yours is an argument for never, ever starting any wars. You either don't know it or you're trying to pretend otherwise.

Boxing Saddam in with sanctions has drawbacks, but it doesn't add wildcards.

Because the sanctions work, and actually prevent him from making WMDs? Uh, Saddam possessing WMDs is a "wildcard". It's the one we'd like to avoid, thanks very much.

[Dr. Frank fan]

No the anti-war left was against the Yugoslavian fiasco as was the non- interventist hard-right. I remember the protests.

SOME of them were. (I already SAID this way back in an early message.) But not all of them, or, I'll warrant, even a majority.

you fail to make the distinction between the democrap leftist politicians in congress backing Clinton for political reasons and the anti-war left.

That's because the "anti-war left" (MOST of them, NOT ALL of them, okay?) also backed Clinton for political reasons. Birds of a feather. So, of course I fail to make a distinction where there is none to speak of.

I believe there were more of them against the Yugoslavian invasion than Iraq.

I believe you are wrong; we saw nothing like the recent protest in San Francisco, for example. College campuses, sure.

Also keep in mind that you are trying to mentally compare the Number Of Protests which took place during the Yugoslavia war with the Number Of Protests we have seen regarding a mere potential war with Iraq. For pete's sake, the frickin' war hasn't even started yet and we've already seen "protests" against this (nonexistent) war.

That was never the case with Yugoslavia.

Why not let's just wait till the bombs start dropping on Iraq, shall we, and then you can try to make your little comparison. At least then you'll be comparing apples to apples.

[Dr. Frank fan]

are not a monolithic pile (unlike, apparently, those lemmings that support it and anything with the GOP label).

Holy cow, you've got some nerve. You made this charge a zillion messages ago, I challenged you on it, you NEVER backed it up, and you're still doing it. I guess I overestimated you.

[Dr. Frank fan]

I merely point out that unqualified inconsistency can occur from either viewpoint.

What does this mean? Just let me know when you're ready to back down from your irresponsible statement, ok?

What proof do you want?

"Proof" of what? I just want you to admit that you can't support your irresponsible statement, which (if you were reasonably honorable) you would have by now.

If you are having trouble understanding this, then I would kindly suggest you remove your GOP blinders.

You're full of it, and I'm through with you.

[Cacophonous]

Thank you. Another indication of the mindlessly indoctrinated is their intolerance of other views. Disrupts the bounds of their own intellects, see, and they cannot handle it.

[gridlock]

One other reason (we are not going in to Syria): Israel

Should we be concerned about the reprecussions to Israel of our actions?

[Dr. Frank fan]

No the anti-war left was against the Yugoslavian fiasco as was the non-interventist hard-right. I remember the protests. I was in fact at the Ohio State town meeting where Albright and others were jeered during their war tour.

P.S. I should also remind you that the lefties' problems with Albright were multiple and complex and did not boil down to simply They Disagreed With The Yugoslavia War.

In fact, most of the leftist ire directed at Albright was due to her "it's worth it" statement regarding the... sanctions against Iraq (you know, the ones which have "killed 500,000 Iraqi children"). In short, the leftist outrage against Albright may have actually had everything to do with Iraq, a lot to do with personal/psychological issues regarding her personality (and, perhaps, her looks), and in the end, very little to do with Serbia at all.

I'm sorry but I can't really chalk up the anti-Albright vitriol as a simple matter of "leftists against the Yugo war". It was much more complicated, personal, and even Iraq-related than that.

[Cacophonous]

Should we be concerned about the reprecussions to Israel of our actions?

Should we? I'm personally not concerned with Israel or any country that doesn't fly the Stars and Stripes, but I've been called an extremist for these views.

I wouldn't consider it impossible that Saddam, in his last few days of shooting chem- and bio-loaded scuds at US forcees, would also lob a few at Tel Aviv. Again, he has nothing to lose.

[gridlock]

...I've been called an extremist for these views.

Say it isn't so!

I would agree with you that America has to come first, but sometimes it is to our advantage to take care of problems overseas before they come back to bite us in some painful place.

The trick is to figure out which missions are worth it and which are not. To me, Iraq (and the subsequent missions) are worth it. Kosovo was not.

[Cacophonous]

If we do Iraq right - move in, do what we have to do, and then get the hell out and leave them to their own fates - I would agree. I just don't see that happening. If we had followed that formula in the Balkans, I would have had no problem.

[palmer]

This is exactly what I was talking about. Hate to break it to you, but all wars have unpredictable consequences. In fact all human endeavors have unpredictable consequences. That's life. Yours is an argument for never, ever starting any wars. You either don't know it or you're trying to pretend otherwise.

I've been trying to tell you that. And you keep saying that Bush has a plan to deal with unpredictable consequences which is impossible. You need to look up the definition of unpredictable.

I never said we shouldn't start wars, we just need to realize that unpredictable consequences make wars much more risky than other courses of action (e.g. boxing Saddam in, encouraging opposition, etc). You think that risk is outweighed by the benefits of successful war and nation building. I'm not too worried about the war, but I am worried about another futile exercise in nation-building similar to Bosnia. At best we might find some third party to take our place preventing civil war, but more likely we will be stuck doing that ourselves.

[palmer]

Can't prove a negative

[palmer]

IMHO, doing nothing in Iraq has a zero probability of leading to a desirable result.

We certainly aren't doing nothing: sanctions, weapons material embargo, overflights, etc.

On the other hand, war has a fair probability of leading to a stable post-Saddam regime in Iraq, provided it is handled carefully and thoroughly.

Not likely IMO. Between Kurds, Shiites, Iran and Turkey, there are too many parties who will want the new state to fail for their own gain. We can try to give everyone a piece like in Bosnia, but then we will be stuck there forever keeping the peace in an artificial country. Both Japan nor Germany had single unified cultures.

don't see how we have any choice. Unless we are willing to resign ourselves to 500 years of increasing Jihadi violence, armed with ever increasingly powerful WMDs, we have to act to change the course of the Islamic world now.

History teaches us that the bad guys get all weapons sooner or later. We can't uninvent NBC weapons, but we can reduce the number of bad guys. Saddam and his supporters are bad guys, but their replacements will probably end up being worse in the long run and wars are a surefire way to create more bad guys. That is the other lesson of history: in each war we fight, we ally ourselves with guys who end up being bad guys. Bin Laden and Saddam are just two examples.

The way to change the course of the Islamic world is to plant the seed of liberal democracy in the sandy soil of the Middle East, and nurture it while it grows.

Don't think that will happen; Algeria is a good example of a more likely result.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"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. . . ."

Sometimes it might almost makes us want to invite the Chinese in to deal with such as this bunch of UGLY throwbacks to the 60's (remember that the recently Ex-42 was one of them in the 60's . . . did his thing in England AND Moscow).