Iraq is different
I have overheard people around campus talk about what direct threat Iraq poses at this point in time. What makes Iraq any different from Iran, North Korea or China for that matter? All those nations have weapons of mass destruction and no one is advocating invading them. One simple reason of history makes Iraq different from all those nations. Iraq has used its weapons against an external enemy and its domestic population. Not threatened to use, but used. There is no reason why Iraq would not use their weapons again. Saddam Hussein, as he reaches old age, is looking for more ways to take revenge on the country that spoiled his plans for Mid-East domination.
He has had success over the past 10 years destroying the coalition allied against him and calling into question the will of the United Nations, international community and the United States. He has managed, in many parts of the world (and this country), to blame the embargo for his people’s suffering. That embargo would disappear in a second if he would give up his weapons.
His refusal to do so suggests that he has plans for them, for why would he give up billions in oil for weapons he does not need? His conventional weapons at the end of the Gulf War already protected his throne from rebellion. I will admit that I would like some “Cuban Missile Crisis” type evidence that Hussein is interacting with international terrorist organizations. However, past evidence and regional trends demonstrate that an alliance of that nature is possible. Experts say that Hussein’s fingerprints were all over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Clinton administration did nothing about it. He attempted to kill former President Bush, and is supporting suicide bombers in the West Bank. All that evidence is a weak reason to launch a pre-emptive strike, but basic analysis of how Mid-East countries and terrorist organizations interact. Saudi Arabia is by no means a friend of al-Qaeda, but it gives large sums of money to organization like that for practical reasons. As long as terrorists commit their acts outside the borders of the donor country then the money will keep rolling in.
Hussein is no friend to radical Islam, but they have a common enemy. Hussein has proven himself to be the ultimate misanthrope, and as he enters old age the reasons for him not to use the weapons grow less important every day. Terrorist organizations will be dying to use them. Iraq cannot be changed from within like Iran, or expected to act rationally like North Korea. America should confront Iraq and make it use (if his subordinates will follow orders) its weapons on our terms not his.
There are many reasons why America should fear confronting Iraq, but you would not hear them if you asked your local peacenik. The Weekly Standard had a great article in its last issue that I have found to be quite true. The neo-hippies seem to be more afraid of President Bush and the war hawks than they do of terrorists.
Almost all criticism I have heard toward going to Iraq start and end with a personal attack on Bush. As if Operation Tips poses a greater threat than a suicide terrorist with nerve gas. Very rarely do they talk about Hussein, and when they do he is dismissed as an average dictator. Hussein’s past deeds do not seem to register with these people. David Brooks is completely right, the far out left is not interested in national security or constructive criticism, but the culture war. They are going about it in their usual name calling intolerant way. If anyone dares make them establish their values then he is a hate-monger racist baby killer. Too bad that these people are not only the freaks on the street but the editors at The New York Times.
On the side… In response to Scott Charney’s name-calling and fascism in this Tuesday’s letter to the editor, I would like to react. Charney hinted that I should not be allowed to write for the paper which proves Huey Long’s statement that if fascism was going to come to American it would come under the guise of non-fascism. I am not a neo-confederate, just a student of history who knows that Union soldiers did not die for the freedom of slaves.
Those pushing political correctness are not good people out to make us a more sensitive country. They are just softening us up with renaming schools and changing flags; as time moves on redistribution of wealth will be on their agenda. Americans need to learn that there are worse things than being called a racist, such as losing your house. The term “reactionary” is a bogus term that implies history has stopped for people with certain ideas. Any attempt to reimpose old concepts or use ideas that were once successful can now be easily dismissed as “reactionary.” And who gets to decide when the time is up on an idea or when values move into the “reactionary” dump, Mr. Charney?
