Fred Barnes: What If We Pulled Out?

The Weekly Standard ^ | 03/26/03 | Fred Barnes

[Pokey78]

If the antiwar protesters had their way, things wouldn't be better. They'd be much, much worse.

A HIGH SCHOOL basketball coach I know has a special approach to those who oppose the war in Iraq. "Oh," he says, "you're on the side of rape, torture, and child abuse." Naturally the antiwar people are offended and angrily insist they're for peace and protecting civilian lives and other noble things besides. Still, there's a point behind the coach's rough characterization of the antiwar crowd. And it shouldn't be forgotten as the war in Iraq enters its second week.

Yes, many of the opponents are wonderful, moral people. And many believe that while Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant, a war to remove him will make things worse in the Middle East and the world, creating more terrorism, instability, civilian deaths, and anti-Americanism. They may turn out to be right, but I doubt it.

But what if President Bush suddenly accepted the advice of opponents of the war, stopped the American invasion, pulled most but not all of U.S. and British forces out of the region, and went back to the United Nations for a renewal of arms inspections. As best I can tell, that's what the protesters in the United States and around the world would like. And so would the French and their allies and maybe even Howard Dean.

Result number one: Saddam would win. He would be the king of the Middle East and free to slaughter the tens of thousands of Iraqis who didn't come to his defense. He would have forced the superpower to retreat. Countries that aided the United States in the war would have to come meekly to terms with Saddam. Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would be dashed again, this time by the strengthening of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose power has been ebbing, and various terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The possibility of democracy being planted in Arab states would also be gone.

Bad as all that is, it's not the worst part. The worst is what would happen inside Iraq--continuation of Saddam's regime in form a more brutal than ever. The mainstream press has done a poor job in laying out the nature of Saddam's regime. But torture and rape and maiming are its defining characteristics.

Dissenters? Their tongues are cut out. Women in influential families that might be a threat to Saddam are raped so their families will be dishonored. A cabinet member who mildly criticized the conduct of the Iraq-Iran war was immediately assassinated and his body was chopped into pieces and sent to his family in a box. Children are tortured to induce confessions from their parents. Merchants accused of "profiteering"--that is, making a profit--are hung on lampposts, dead, in front of their shops.

Sports Illustrated added a new dimension to the cruelty this week in a piece on Iraq's Olympic team, which is run by Uday Hussein, Saddam's son. Instead of trying to generate pride in athletes, Uday uses torture. If athletes lose, they are beaten by Uday and then more systematically tortured by specialists. As you might guess, few Iraqis now want to play on teams internationally. A few years ago, the Iraqi Olympians were 150-strong. Now it's a team of four.

Foes of the war don't want to accept any responsibility for what happens if the war were to cease today. Saddam could have been dealt with diplomatically, they say. But that failed for 12 years. He's not a threat to his neighbors. But the neighbors think otherwise, privately if not publicly, or they wouldn't be assisting the American coalition. He's not in bed with al Qaeda. But he's in contact with them.

But forget all that. Like it or not, there's already a war going on. Would it really make sense now for the United States to negotiate a pullout? Would anybody be better off except Saddam and his subordinates? Would Saddam even consider allowing arms inspectors again? Would he disarm? Would he be chastened and act benignly? The answers are no, no, no, no, and no. Does anyone doubt that, as the coach says, rape, torture, and child abuse would continue? The answer is no to that question, too.

[Pokey78]

Ping for the FredHeads.

[lsee]

Pulling out has a very high failure rate...or so I've read.

[jamndad5]

Fred Rocks!

[MHGinTN]

What the 'protesters' fail to understand is, our method for defending our sovereign home was mutually assured destruction with nuclear response when attacked. Where would they suggest we target the first MRVed missile for the 9/11/2001 attack? When saddam sends anthrax or Smallpox, or ricin gel to America via terrorists of his or someone else's conniving, how many nuclear tipped missiles would they like to see rain down on innocent Iraqis? [And any alert person knows that containment cannot prevent demons like Saddam from creating and sending such WMD as engineered smallpox, but apparently the fools acting as the Democrat Party's Brown Shirts cannot connect the dots.] The irrationality of their position glares when exposed to the alternative they pose.

Just today, Barney Franks enumerated the containment philosophy as working with Iraq 'and we could always crush them if they didn't stay contained', he opined. I ask Barney Fwanks, "With what do we crush them if not ground and air forces as are being applied right now?... Is the leftist bilgespittle alternative to failed containment the annihilation of a whole nation? They offer no alternative, and that's their naked treachery ... it's all about bringing this nation down to a vulnerability state that would change our society into a mere dog in the international morass, impotent as sinkEmperor wished US to be, and being converted to Islam at the point of sword, or plastic shredder, as Saddam has shown he will use on his victims.

[SchuylerTheViking]

Would it really make sense now for the United States to negotiate a pullout? Would anybody be better off except Saddam and his subordinates? Would Saddam even consider allowing arms inspectors again? Would he disarm? Would he be chastened and act benignly? The answers are no, no, no, no, and no.

The Beetle has it. And, protesting now against an administration such as the previous one, might have had a chance at being effective. But protesting against a principled leader who's already committed to what he knows to be the right thing is pointless. Protesters are therefore definitionally anti-American, not exercisers of first Amendment rights.

A few years ago, the Iraqi Olympians were 150-strong. Now it's a team of four.

Somebody bet me money against the Iraqi track and field team in '04.

[Reverend Bob]

Met a couple of old friends tonight. Two are lifelong Democrats; one an airforce vet, the other a military historian. While neither likes (or has any confidence in) Bush, they are both pro war. They worry about Bush's competence to follow through. The military historian, to his credit, understands what Bush is trying to do (ie -- remake the Middle East by turning Iraq into a pro-Western secular democracy), though he considers it a "gamble". Both however, while lifelong "liberal democrats", seem very supportive of what would, only a few years ago, be considered EXTREME measures. The historian in particular, is veering very closely into Ann Coulter territory. I see this as a very positive development while, unfortunately, my ex and her sister have gone the opposite direction and now sound like left-wing Buchananites.

[Sabertooth]

But what if President Bush suddenly accepted the advice of opponents of the war, stopped the American invasion, pulled most but not all of U.S. and British forces out of the region, and went back to the United Nations for a renewal of arms inspections. As best I can tell, that's what the protesters in the United States and around the world would like. And so would the French and their allies and maybe even Howard Dean.

Result number one: Saddam would win. He would be the king of the Middle East and free to slaughter the tens of thousands of Iraqis who didn't come to his defense. He would have forced the superpower to retreat. Countries that aided the United States in the war would have to come meekly to terms with Saddam. Hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement would be dashed again, this time by the strengthening of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, whose power has been ebbing, and various terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Fred loses me here. If the result of this Iraq War, like the result of the Gulf War, is to pressure Israel into further capitulation against their genocidal enemies, the false, lying "palestinians," we will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

The "palestinians" are for Hussein . They have always been so. What do they get in return? A Nobel Peace Prize and Israeli land.

How does more weakness now, to prevent the strengthening of the Egyptian Arafat, yet rewarding Arafat, serve peace?

There is no possibility of peace so long as fantasies of an "Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement" lap at the minds of pundits and politicians. To ignore the Historical fact that Jordan is the true fictitious "palestinian" homeland, is to reward decades of terrorism, yet again. More will follow. Wars will follow, and they will be worse in the future than if we and Israel fought them now.

The possibility of democracy being planted in Arab states would also be gone.

That possibilty vanished when the Muslims killed or drove the Christians out of Lebanon.

Islamic democracy? You may as well hold your breath for Stalinist democracy. The only Islamic democracy, Turkey, was built on decades of genocide against Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, and more. Even so, Christians have been fleeing Turkey for decades. The Turkish Christian population is a fraction of what it was only a few decades ago.

The article was intended to cast aspersions on the anti-war crowd. It was successful in that. Unfortunately, it revealed more of the folly to follow the successful prosecution of this war, from people who should know better.

[Torie]

Barnes comment about the Palestinian conflict is somewhat silly, since it has its own unique dynamic. But as to Iraq, it has the best chance if conditions are right of achieving some semblance of democracy of anywhere in the Arab world among the major players. You heard it here first. I say that because Iraq has the highest educational levels, and the largest critical mass for a middle class as a percentage of the population of the major Arab countries, and Islamic fundamentalism is at a rather low level, thanks in part to Saddam. Saddam was and is evil, but not a total prince of darkness. He still needs to die soon however, assuming he is not aleady dead. I don't want my words to be misunderstood.

[MHGinTN]

Islamism is theocratic totalitarianism. Minds steeped in sucha perspective cannot wrap around the notion of free self-governance, like trying to instruct a carp on the vagaries of sunbathing in the Arizona desert.

[MHGinTN]

You heard it here first. It would appear that you've not been paying close attention.

[junta]

I'm sorry but when the propaganda passes war off as social work its getting a little too deep.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Excellent post, Saber. Thank you!

[Sabertooth]

as to Iraq, it has the best chance if conditions are right of achieving some semblance of democracy of anywhere in the Arab world among the major players. You heard it here first.

First? C'mon, that's been rattling around FR for a year and a half.

I actually think there's some merit to that experiment. Iraq's secularism could give it the best shot at democracy. Either success or failure there would be instructive.

[Torie]

Ok, I am not first, second, third or fourth, and whatever, but the thrust here was that Barnes was being pollyanish. I think we have a reasonable shot, assuming a massive number of civilians are not shot. And that means if we want to win the peace, that we might have to endue a lot of delay and frustration.

[EaglesUpForever]

"Oh," he says, "you're on the side of rape, torture, and child abuse."

Sums the "anti-war" crowd up pretty well...

But there's still too much hype about "Democracy", "Freedom", and "Liberty" in a post-war Iraq. I could care less if these people have Democracy; they don't seem to want it. I just don't want them to continue to pose a threat to the rest of the world. First things first...

[the_doc]

Islamism is theocratic totalitarianism.

I agree. But I would point out that the Romanist Church-states were like this in the Sixteenth Century.

The good news is that Western Civilization eventually overthrew the viciously Constantinian theocratic system in favor of religious freedom. So, there may be hope for wooing a lot of people away from Islam. (As I understand it, this is already happening in Iran.)

In the meantime, our action of crushing Saddam and his cronies to death will command respect. And if it inspires more hatred, more terrorists--as it will in some quarters, the U.S. will just have to escalate the war.

Let's go ahead and find out what happens. We don't have any other choice.

[Sabertooth]

I think we have a reasonable shot, assuming a massive number of civilians are not shot.

I'm all for the experiment, though I think I'm more pessimistic than you are.

However, if we're going to rebuild Iraq in our image as we did Japan and Germany, we're going to need to wreak the same type of devastation upon them. Not their civilians, but among their military and their butchers. Fortunately, the weapons we have now make that possible.

[bonesmccoy]

"Fred Rocks"

Yep

[bonesmccoy]

This is beginning to sound like the old question surrounding the end of world war two.

Should the United States have used the atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Did the war end due to those weapons or not?

Historians continue to debate. Personally, I don't like the idea of the atomic bombs being used on 250,000 civilians.

My solution in Iraq would be the following:
1. Capture Iraqi TV
2. Begin radio and TV mass saturation broadcasts to show that Saddam is not in charge and to show arabic documentaries of the havoc Saddam wrought on other Arabs.
3. Begin to reinstitute the Iraqi national Congress prior to the end of the hostilities. This would force the UN to deal with two different Iraq delegations (some of whom were recognized by the US/UK/coalition and some who still recognize Saddam).