Given the likelihood of a US invasion of Iraq, it’s utterly crucial and in the American spirit that we engage in an extensive national debate about this issue. Political staff writer Peter Grier of The Christian Science Monitor is somewhat accurate in his assessment that the more pertinent ideological debate is occurring within the Republican/Conservative camp rather than between the Republican – Democratic partisan divide. He states: “Call it “realists” versus “Reaganites”, although this oversimplifies things”. However, I conceptualize this ongoing dispute regarding an “Iraq attack” just a little bit differently, with a three-way split among the Republican/Conservative camp as follows:
1) Libertarian/Isolationist “Antiwar” Crowd that falls under the auspices of the Hard-Right, 2) The State Department/Internationalist Crowd (still Republicans, although moderate, wishy-washy and accommodating of the Euro-weenies), and 3) The Mainstream Conservatives (Reaganite, Rush Limbaugh Crowd). The Hard-Right will bristle at the thought, but they are actually more in sync with the current hands-off approach being promulgated by the State Department/Internationalist Crowd, than the perspective being espoused by the Mainstream Conservatives. As many Ether Zone readers are aware, I’m aligned with the Mainstream Conservative bunch, and when we sniff formidable danger, we want action. And we believe that a full-fledged homicidal maniac with a nuclear bomb poses an imminent threat, which falls within the category of BIG TROUBLE with flashing neon lights. Saddam Hussein has an incontrovertible history of perpetrating tremendous violence, inside and outside of Iraq.
The situation that we face in Iraq is a Hobson’s Choice, really no choice or alternative at all other than to confront Saddam’s regime, which is perilously close to having a nuclear weapon. If we fail to act, Saddam will shortly have the nuclear option, which he will certainly exploit to the fullest extent, possibly even passing this weaponry to a surrogate terrorist group to do the dirty work. As noted by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other international experts, Saddam would not hesitate to utilize the bomb, or leverage it as a means to coerce and blackmail other nations. And, of course, that is unacceptable by any rational calculation.
The Bush administration is beginning to disseminate once highly held intelligence information, clearly in attempts to make their public case on an Iraq invasion, and mold not only American but global opinion. We are now aware that al-Qaeda terrorists are being harbored inside Iraq, with at least one group conducting experimentation with deadly toxins and poison gases at a small facility located in Northern Iraq. According to ABC News, the al-Qaeda members are attempting to weaponize the highly lethal substance Ricin into powder and aerosol forms, and testing the effects primarily on donkeys and chickens (although one poor soul, a local man, was studied and killed by these thugs also). Reportedly, President Bush recently scrapped plans for a Special Forces stealth raid on that facility after determining it was not worth risking American lives over this minor lab. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control over its population, it’s very hard to imagine that the (Iraq) government is not aware of what’s taking place in the country” (Washington Post). Within the past few weeks, the White House also confirmed that the September 11th lead-hijacker Mohamed Atta did indeed meet with an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001, as was initially reported by the media last year. I think that we can expect “rolling disclosure” of various similar tidbits by the Bush Administration, substantiating a link between the al-Qaeda network and Iraq.
Moreover, not only has Saddam failed to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions for dismantling his catastrophic Weapons programs, he has, in fact, accelerated these prohibited programs over the past four years since UN weapons inspections were halted. US intelligence has confirmed that Saddam’s regime has caches of biological and chemical weaponry socked away, and it continues to develop such outlawed weaponry. Importantly, Iraq already possesses the “trigger system” for a nuclear device, and now only needs adequate fissile materials, either plutonium or weapons-grade uranium, to construct a bomb. It is currently estimated that Iraq will be a nuclear power in only a year or two. The implications of all this should be alarming to even the average person.
Of course it’s extremely noteworthy that Iraq possesses Weapons of Mass Destruction, in addition to being an unscrupulous “rogue regime” that is actively cooperating with transnational terrorist organizations. But this holds true for other nations, as well, such as Iran, North Korea and Syria. Then why is Saddam’s regime significantly more dangerous, thus warranting invasion? The primary reasons relate to Saddam’s twisted psyche that places us all in jeopardy: a) Saddam has no qualms, no inhibitions about utilizing Weapons of Mass Destruction, a manner of thinking made manifest by his past chemical warfare attacks against both the Iranians (Iran-Iraq War) and his own people, the Kurds, and b) Saddam has a history of profound aggression toward other nations as demonstrated by the lengthy, bloody war that he launched against the Iranians resulting in innumerable deaths approximated at over a million, his egregious invasion of Kuwait that was, in fact, a stepping stone toward a planned takeover of Saudi Arabia (only thwarted by the counter-assault of the Gulf War coalition), and his scud missile strikes on both Israel and Saudi Arabia during that same time frame.
Remember, about a dozen years ago, Saddam was intent on controlling a significant chuck of oil-rich territory in the Middle East, which would have permitted him a strangle hold on the oil market. And the huge multi-national coalition, at the time, was determined not to be held hostage to his ill-gotten gains. Here in America, the Gulf War was very much about “oil and jobs”, and the moral conviction that a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein, should never be appeased.
Given Saddam psychological profile and background rife with almost unimaginable violence, it’s clear that he will utilize every weapon at his disposal, including his nuclear capabilities at some point. Saddam is a brutal psychopath who poses a terrible threat not only to the safety and security of neighboring countries, but western democracies as well. Certainly, he still harbors expansionist dreams and would like nothing better than to re-capture Kuwait for the purpose of incorporating it into “greater Iraq”. And there is no doubt that America and Israel are at the top of Saddam’s hit list. But undoubtedly, other nations are at risk also, if for no other reason than they could be subjected to nuclear fallout and a tainted environment by one of Saddam’s detonated nuclear devices. It’s too bad that the Euro-weenies are too myopic to comprehend the overall picture. However, America as the world’s only superpower, has an obligation to exhibit leadership and take salient action, from both a moral and a self-serving, “realpolitik” perspective. By facilitating “regime change”, we are not only protecting our self-interests, but taking a compelling ethical stance as well. As President Bush has told us, time is not on our side, and it’s therefore imperative that we remove Saddam from power sooner rather than later.
In this brave new world of asymmetric warfare, we must quickly come to grips with the changes now underway in order to ensure our survival. Flexibility and creativity will be key elements in this new combat milieu. As proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction continues around the globe, “preemption” will become a vital tactic to help defend against planned catastrophic attacks on both military and civilian populations. Furthermore, in this emerging landscape of growing terrorist activities, which permits our enemies to strike out suddenly and shoot from the shadows, a preemptive defense makes even more sense as a vital counter-terrorism measure. A “first strike” is especially useful when aimed at terrorists that vigorously target our vulnerabilities and exploit the element of surprise, which clearly occurred pursuant to the September 11th attacks. Of course, all is predicated upon an excellent system of intelligence and analysis, so that we can have an accurate grasp of enemy weaponry, timing and intent. In truth, we must remain ever-vigilant, constantly gathering intelligence in order to anticipate assaults and minimize risk.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”