At War: Moving Targets - Brief Article

National Review, Sept 30, 2002

The immediate task before the United States is to topple the Ba'athist regime in Iraq. What are the objections?

Not surprisingly, they shift over time. During the summer, one heard that the Bush administration had not made its case. In fact, the president began making his case at least as long ago as his "Axis of Evil" speech, when he singled out Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as a state with the means to make weapons of mass destruction, and the will to use them. In his West Point speech, he argued that preemptive strikes against such regimes were legitimate.

As administration figures iterated these points, the complaint became that the issue had to be debated in Congress. Accordingly, after Labor Day, President Bush urged Congress "to have an open dialogue," a "debate the American people must hear." Many a congressman will be shown up in embarrassing postures. Sen. Chuck Hagel has been saying that only vets can have opinions about foreign policy; what then are his opinions? Sen. Bob Graham said we should be targeting Iran and Syria. Thanks for the tip, Bob, but if we were targeting them, isn't it possible you would be saying that we should target Iraq? Majority Leader Tom Daschle will move heaven and earth to delay any vote until the first Wednesday after the first Monday of November.

Conceding that Saddam is dangerous and that we must do something about him, other critics, notably former president Carter, urge us to demand a new round of inspections. They were crushingly answered by former secretary of state George Shultz in a Washington Post op-ed. Security Council resolutions have demanded inspections in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. In February 1998, President Clinton and Secretary General Kofi Annan demanded unfettered and unrestricted access for U.N. inspectors. They didn't get it, and a new Security Council resolution in November 1998 condemned Iraq's stonewalling as a "flagrant violation." Inspectors cannot do their work because Saddam Hussein will not let them; he will not let them because he is hellbent on developing his weapons. "Nothing has worked," Shultz concluded. "Any further steps will only provide him with more time and heighten the danger."

This disposes of a related complaint: that we must work through the U.N. We have, and the normal channels of U.N. diplomacy have failed. Would we then be going it alone? We already have allies giving us important logistical and military assistance: in the region, Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman; in Europe, Britain (Tony Blair declared that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "a threat to the whole of the world"). As we continue to make our case, others will join us. If we have to move without the valiant warriors of Saudi Arabia, so be it.

Other arguments are base, or too subtle. Joe Lockhart, former White House press secretary, accused Bush of wagging the dog. "They were very, very anxious to change the subject away from the economy and the corporate-governance things and scandals." An ex-Clinton flack, worrying about scandals! Former Navy secretary James Webb argues that the Chinese will fish in troubled waters if we move on Iraq. So they will, but that is the risk of any action. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Why should we go to war with Saddam Hussein? Let Colin Powell make the case. "Preemption or prevention," he said on Fox News Sunday, "is a concept that's been with us all along. It is not anything that's new and revolutionary. I think it has risen in the hierarchy of thinking these days because it's a different world after 9/11." Actually, it's the same world it was on 9/10; it is only that we are more aware of our vulnerability, and of the malice of our enemies. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London announced on September 9 that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon within months with a little foreign help. It already has chemical and biological weapons, and an unknown number of medium-range missiles. These could be aimed not just at Israel but also at Europe. Weapons of mass destruction could be slipped, with appropriate cut-outs, to helpful terrorists worldwide. Czech intelligence continues to insist that hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague. There are more Attas, and more agents, where they came from.

Self-defense is reason enough to act. It should not be safer to serve in Special Forces than to work for Cantor Fitzgerald. Regime change in Iraq could also produce a new model for Middle Eastern governance. It is wise to be skeptical of the democratic yearnings of other cultures. Slogans and aspirations have been spread worldwide, but old habits die hard. On the other hand, few in the Middle East have had the experience of a measure of freedom. We should not forget the simple and moving scenes that greeted the fall of the Taliban last autumn: men shaving their beards; women shedding their burkas; people listening to music and watching old Bollywood movies. No one welcomes oppression. Saddam's form of it is Napoleonic, rather than theocratic. Will there not also be dancing in the streets when he is gone?