Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/18/2001 7:23:45 PM PDT by Heisenburger

Many, like myself, are asking why the U.S. has not yet responded to the acts of war committed against innocent Americans by Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and possibly the government of Iraq. Even more, some of us are doubting whether the military will respond at all beyond firing a few cruise missiles into empty mountain ranges in Afghanistan. Though some may argue that the U.S. is planning a large-scale invasion, it is not beyond the pale to ask that the military makes an immediate down-payment on future attacks. Such a down-payment would weaken the Taliban's alertness as they would necessarily believe that once the first round is over, no more responses will occur. Yes, perhaps the attack is indeed taking time to plan and execute. But then again, perhaps little military planning has yet taken place.

The real reason the U.S. has not yet responded may be the extremely poor advice Colin Powell is reportedly giving to the President. Powell, unlike the rest of Americans, seeks a peaceful resolution to the current situation, unaware of the fact that any peaceful resolution will be seen not as charity by the U.S. but rather as a sign of America's weakness, thus bolstering Jihadist resolve and assuring future attacks. Indeed, if Bush follows Powell's weak-kneed recommendations, rather than that of seasoned foreign policy expert Donald Rumsfield, we will never be safe in our own homes again.

Powell has a history of being a coward. In the Gulf War, it was not because of any lack of U.N. authorization that the U.S. left Saddam Hussein in power. Once our troops were in place and once coalition nations had dedicated their armies to the conflict, taking out Hussein could have easily been negotiated. No, we didn't take out Hussein because Powell was afraid of him and was able to catch Bush the First's ear more ably than Schwarzkopf.

Reports from the Miami Herald and other sources indicates that Powell is determined to gather together another coalition like the one American employed during the Gulf War. Powell misunderstands two obvious points:

1)This is our war, not theirs. In the Gulf War, the U.S. had not been directly attacked, so there was a need to make sure U.S. action at least had the image of being a resolute action by all the nations of the world to destroy blatant imperialism. However, in this case war has been declared upon the U.S., not the U.N., and unlike the small, weak nation of Kuwait, we don't need others to fight our battles for us.

2)Any worldwide coalition will necessarily devolve into a ladies' bridge club, where actions are taken based on trying not to offend the member-nations, rather than on the best interests of the American people and the future generations of the United States. We will not invade Iraq because the Saudis won't stand for it. We will not overthrow Qaddafi because Egypt may feel threatened. We will not destroy bin Laden's facilities in the Sudan because Algiers would be angry (after all, they'd be next).

More, Powell's negotiation with the Taliban, as well as his negotiation with moderate Arab states as to whether or not to strike Iraq, violates the fundamental rule of American policy on terrorism: We do not negotiate with terrorists. Why? To negotiate is to give up a concession. Even the smallest such concession given to terrorist governments will embolden them to seek more compensation by future terrorist actions: Give Jihadists an inch, and they will take a mile.

What if Powell does convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden? We win, right? Wrong. If bin laden is handed over, we will necessarily need to put him on trial in the U.S. Not only will the Court House be under constant bomb threats, requiring constant evacuations, thus insuring a chaotic trial, but bin Laden will continue to orchestrate further attacks on the U.S. from within his jail cell. Couldn't we put him under lock and key and deny him the ability to communicate to people outside his cell? Think again. The ACLU would never allow it.

Even worse, we will not be able to punish the Taliban and Hussein, or destroy bin Laden's camps and assets in Afghanistan or elsewhere until bin Laden has been convicted and has exhausted his right to appeal, a process that could take up to 20 years. After all, how could we attack Al-Qaida until it has been proven by "12 good men and true" that bin Laden orchestrated the attacks?

If Powell's peacenik policies are followed, the Taliban, Hussein, and any other nations involved in sponsoring terrorism will necessarily assume that America is weak. Such tyrants do not have the ability to think rationally, nor to tell the difference between right and wrong. Force is all they understand. Though the West would view a peaceful resolution as a wonderful act of compassion, mercy, and forgiveness by the United States, Islamic dictatorships would assume that because the U.S. did not use force, they have been given a greenlight to even more heinous actions in the future: Anyone heard of a little toy called the nuclear suitcase?

Is there room for Powell's mercy? Yes: After the U.S. invades Afghanistan and Iraq, deposes the governments there, and sets up democratic, pro-Western regimes, America should seriously consider a Middle East Marshall Policy. Such a policy would insure prosperity and education in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we know, a prosperous and educated people are less likely to be given over to anti-American madmen, Canada's example notwithstanding. (Hey, just kidding!) Furthermore, an aid package given by the United States and implemented by the American government (not the possibly corrupt governments of the nations being aided) would secure in the minds of those nations' people that America really is the charitable, compassionate, peaceful bastion of freedom that we in the U.S. already know her to be. Beyond that, such a plan would flood Iraq's and Afghanistan's economies with American dollars, providing another beneficial market for American capital and consumer goods, just as the Marshall Plan did for us in Europe.

It is clear that if we follow Powell's plan now, we will only be risking further attacks. We have learned from Neville Chamberlain that peace cannot be bought with the false smiles of cowardly diplomats. King Solomon assured us that to everything there is a season: a time for war, and a time for peace. There will someday be a time for peace and charity. Now is the time for war.

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.