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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sunday, February 08, 2004
John Kerry: candidate for change
Voted for No Child Left Behind: now opposes it
Voted for the PATRIOT Act: now opposes it
Voted for war in Iraq: now opposes it
Voted against Operation Desert Storm in 1991: now supports it
"Opposes special interests": accepted more lobbyist money than ANY OTHER senator in the last 15 years
If we want a weathervane president, he's our man.
He's got a good economic plan though: just marry a rich heiress - TWICE!
2/08/2004 03:59:00 PM
The current debate over Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and potential failures in the American intelligence community is a healthy one, though the politics of it are harmful. The war on terror will be won only with quality information collected by our intelligence agencies. While the furor is about the over-estimate of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction prior to the start of war in 2003, we should be more concerned with the recent underestimation of North Korea’s, Libya’s, Pakistan’s and India’s unconventional weapons programs, not to mention of Iraq’s prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The fact that no weapons stores have yet been found in Iraq in 2004 vastly simplifies the issue and makes what we have found seem less onerous than it is. For in an age of terrorism and proliferation, advancing the notion that the only threat worth confronting is a fully developed one is extremely risky. If the result is to annul America’s forward strategy and revert to the pre-Bush philosophy of waiting until threats are on our doorstep, the consequences could be grave.
After September 11, we should have learned that there are forces in the world that seek the total destruction of our way of life – the democratic principles we cherish and the human rights we value. Our enemies are intent on burying Western liberalism and building on top of it a theocratic tyranny. Such forces had been able to inflict casualties on America and our allies in the past, but now the stakes are higher because of (i) the spread of technology that can multiply their destructive capabilities and (ii) the increasing availability of the means with which to deliver them. Because of the potential for catastrophic attacks that would make September 11 look minor, the rules of engagement must change in this first war of the 21st Century.
Iraq represented a clear and present danger to America because it had an acknowledged WMD program and multiple modes of delivery. It is well known that Saddam’s Iraq used chemical weapons on multiple occasions – this is not in question. Therefore, Saddam had moved irrevocably beyond the development stage and was forever in the possession of the technical know-how to build WMD and, more importantly, had demonstrated his willingness to use them. Leave aside the fact that every significant intelligence agency believed that such weapons existed and that the UN’s last report detailed specific quantities of unaccounted for anthrax and botulinum. We know Saddam had the precursor materials and equipment necessary to manufacture new weapons. The only point at issue is whether he had a cache of ready-to-use chemical agents and biological toxins. The argument that Saddam was not an “imminent” threat is akin to saying that because a bakery has flour, oil, eggs, sugar, ovens and chefs, it is not a bakery because we see no finished cakes. The time it takes to transform knowledge and materials into fully constituted WMD is less than what it would take to summon the glacial UN to destroy an unconventional weapons stockpile, assuming we would have been alerted to their precise moment manufacture. Thus, the existence of both the means and wherewithal to create WMD, as well as the proven readiness to use them, represent a peril equal to that of ready stockpiles.
In terms of the capacity to deliver WMD, this comes in two forms. Saddam’s illegal missile programs were uncovered and are a clear breach of disarmament agreements and the 1991 cease-fire. More importantly, the terrorist haven that was Saddam’s Iraq posed a considerable threat in its role as a clearinghouse of anti-American groups. Abu Nidal, responsible for the murder of American Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro, lived under Saddam’s protection in Baghdad. He ran a facility in Iraq at which Mohammed Atta, lead 9/11 hijacker, trained, according to a memo by Saddam’s intelligence chief. Ziad Jarrah, pilot of the 9/11 plane that went down in Pennsylvania, was also linked to Abu Nidal. (Abu Nidal was found dead in Baghdad just before the U.S. invasion, in what must be the first case of suicide with multiple bullet wounds.) Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda terrorist, is known to have operated in Iraq and 7 pounds of cyanide were found in one of his safe houses in Iraq. In addition, the Ansar al-Islam group, an Al Qaeda affiliate, was based in Iraq. Finally, Saddam Hussein financed Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombers who have taken hundreds of Israeli and American lives. Thus, Saddam had or was developing the means, either by missile or by terrorist groups, with which to deploy WMD.
Intelligence is not a perfect science and the interpretation of fragmented bits of data is not done in a vacuum. Knowing that Iraq possessed WMD capabilities, had illegal missile systems and was a transit point for terrorist groups, it would have been irresponsible for the Bush Administration in a post-9/11 context to sit and wait until the threat was manifestly apparent. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for a threat to become “imminent” before we respond to it. In the age of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, threats must be eliminated before they are fully developed. An American president, in this age, must not wait until intelligence concludes with 100% certainty that a danger has completely materialized because by then it is too late. One only has to look to North Korea to see what nuclear blackmail looks like, and it is the result of a failed Clinton policy of appeasement to North Korea and deferral to the UN. Thus, the question regarding Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is not whether the regime needed to be removed, but when we were willing to remove it. And if history has any relevant lessons, it is that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action. Not only does paralysis in the face of a menace embolden that and other menaces, but it makes the inevitable day of reckoning that much more painful.
Beyond the myopic view of WMD, the scourge of terrorism more generally is the result of tyranny mixed with fanatical theology. Those who blame Islamic terror on poverty are blind to the fact that the terror threat does not come from the more impoverished areas of sub-Saharan Africa, South America or Southeast Asia. In fact, the 9/11 terrorists were both educated and moneyed. The best cure for this cancer is liberty, and the establishment of a democratic Arab state would be a hinge in history. We could have endured the status quo – it would have been easier, perhaps, in the short run. But it is necessary to change the middle east if we want to end terror, and the grand experiment in Iraq is one well worth taking.
2/08/2004 03:55:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
