Examines issues of the day against a triumvirate of core principles: liberty, responsibility and justice.
comments: americanbeacon@hotmail.com
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
This is where you stick random tidbits of information about yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Thursday, February 27, 2003
In his speech to the American Enterprise Institute this evening, President Bush laid out a grand vision for the future of the middle east. He described vast swaths of land, from Morocco to Iran, which would be transformed from old-fashioned autocracies into modern-day democracies. As this vision relates to the current haggling over Iraq, the administration has been invoking human rights as a casus belli with increasing frequency. However, international law under the relevant United Nations resolutions do not call for a use-of-force to achieve this objective. While the disarmament of Iraq is what the resolutions allow military force to accomplish, proponents of such force now more openly call for regime change as a goal. This legal question certainly warrants scrutiny. Additionally, the President described a nation-building strategy more far-reaching than anything since World War II. From a man who campaigned against exactly this type of activity, it is a curious evolution to behold.
It has been said far too many times that September 11 changed everything. Yet it remains true. To clarify, it is actually not the world that changed on that day, but merely our understanding of it. The threats that became evident then existed years earlier. But this new understanding is what makes President Bush�s middle east plan a coherent policy and it corresponds to the shift in America�s military posture, as documented in our National Security Strategy and unveiled by the President at West Point last year. This new posture, simplemindedly denigrated by opponents with the shorthand �policy of preemption,� accounts for the tactical and technological transformation of our enemies.
In 2000, nation-building was a time-killing activity performed by troops in areas of marginal national security interest. There was no danger to America posed by such nations as Haiti and Bosnia. However, we now know that we ignore at our own peril countries that are little more than lines on a map. It is the lawlessness and chaos of places like Afghanistan and Somalia that provide ideal sanctuary for terrorist elements. Historically, countries characterized by dysfunctional regimes or chronic civil wars represented no threat to America. With the advent of global terror networks, of course, this notion has changed so that the vast oceans to our east and west no longer protect our flanks adequately.
For these reasons, what happens in the most backwards country in the most remote part of the world can have deadly serious consequences for the United States. And this is why nation-building is no longer a costly and inconvenient distraction for our government. It is as germane to our national security as is ballistic missile defense, because each directly confronts the most menacing threats to America today.
With regard to the more vocal calls for removal of Saddam from power, while it is not explicitly mentioned in UN resolutions, it is allowable because the goal of disarmament requires it. The inspections charade is entirely a matter of process, not of substance. Inspectors do not seek and destroy proscribed weapons and systems. They simply monitor that a nation undergoing disarmament is completing the tasks required. No amount of cajoling or encouragement will wrestle disarmament from a resistant regime. If Saddam wishes to keep his chemical and biological weapons hidden, while dribbling out theatrical acts of compliance, he can and will do so. No regime can be disarmed against its will. If the regime will not disarm, then it must be replaced by a new regime that will disarm. So if Saddam refuses to relinquish these weapons from his grip, his grip must be removed from the weapons. This is why regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq.
People who can comprehend these dynamics will conclude that our national security, in the age of terror, depends on much more than it did a decade ago. Those who argue against the President�s strategy, claiming it requires provocative and excessively costly intrusions into the affairs of other nations, are stuck in a dated mode of thinking. Our greatest dangers are not standing armies and conventional troop formations fighting on battlefields, so our fearsome and lethal armed forces are insufficient for the task at hand. Though today�s enemies seek ways to attack us that do not involve a traditional theater of operations, they still require a base of operations. And the eradication of these potential bases is the surest way to protect not only America, but the entire peace-loving world.
2/27/2003 01:27:00 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
