Posted on 02/07/2003 3:01:26 AM PST by conservativecorner
I have known and worked closely with Colin Powell for many years. He has my highest respect. His presentation this week before the U.N. was brilliantly constructed, quite unanswerable, and to those with open minds, truly persuasive. After hearing Mr. Powell's airtight case against Saddam Hussein, there is only question left: Why not invade Iraq?
Opponents of war say that containment is working, that the inspectors need more time, that we have not found a "smoking gun" or established a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. Some say we should not attack Iraq because a few Security Council members are against it. Others argue that war would simply be too expensive (Sen. Edward Kennedy, who rarely met an expenditure he didn't support, leads this view). It is also said that we would have to stay too long and that we might "destabilize" the Mideast. These are most of the publicly stated reasons for opposing any military action against Iraq. There are a few others not generally publicly stated: France and Germany, for example, want to trade with Iraq and covet its oil. Quite simply, the fact that the U.S. is leading the effort to de-fang Saddam means that some countries must automatically oppose our efforts.
Why do we lead the case for action -- military if necessary -- against Iraq? For all the reasons Mr. Powell set out so unassailably before the U.N. No sane country can or should allow the weapons chamber-of-horrors Mr. Powell disclosed to remain in the hands of one of the world's most dangerous leaders.
What do our opponents want? Delay, inaction, more time for more futile inspections, and the "cover" provided by U.N. action rather than U.S. action. Mr. Powell demonstrated how much the inspectors have missed and how they have been deceived. What reason is there to suppose that several more weeks or months will accomplish anything except to give Jacques Chirac another opportunity to stride purposefully to another rostrum and demand more delay, giving Saddam more time to complete his quest for nuclear weapons to add to his arsenal of terror.
As for the demands for a "smoking gun," these proponents of delay should recall that a gun only smokes after it is fired. And as for the nexus between Iraq and al Qaeda, to deny it one must shut one's eyes and ears to Mr. Powell's convincing proof. But the real question for those who counsel more delays and more violations is: What exactly are you waiting for? Does anyone really think the U.N. is going to disarm Saddam? If the Security Council is finally moved to act at all, what would that action be? Probably passing another resolution demanding that Saddam disarm. He might even agree -- with a promise as worthless as all his promises of the past.
If, by some wild stretch of the imagination, the Security Council should agree to military action against Iraq, who would be called upon to carry it out? Most likely the U.S., but only after Saddam had been given more time to develop weapons of mass destruction. Certainly it is hard to imagine France or Germany being called on to fight for any U.N. action against Iraq -- and it is even more difficult to imagine them being very effective. The delays being sought so passionately would result only in helping Iraq. As for the cost that new recruits to the economy bloc are so worried about, we have never let fears of costs block our entry into struggles for freedom -- nor did we refuse to spend the time necessary to complete the job. In all of this cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of a Saddam-free world are in danger of being ignored.
This would not be the first war the U.S. entered to free the world of assorted monsters of the past. And no one can deny that our successful efforts in the past have resulted in a vast improvement for the people of the world. It is gratifying to note that the heads of nine European countries, augmented by others after the Powell presentation, have recognized the necessity, and the appropriateness, of the U.S.-U.K. leadership in the ousting of Saddam Hussein. For it is the ousting that is required. Simply "disarming" Saddam will ensure that we will all be subject to his threats and deadly intentions as long as he remains in power.
War should indeed only be chosen as a last resort. But what other resort is there? Diplomatic negotiations and solutions will not work when you have to negotiate with liars whose history demonstrates that they will not keep their word. The only diplomatic solution that would avoid war would be to give Saddam what he wants: weapons to terrorize the world, the opportunity to practice nuclear blackmail unhampered, and agreements that allow him to dominate the Middle East.
We fought several wars because diplomatic solutions were not possible without appeasement. Yet appeasement is essentially what our opponents call for now. Unlike Mr. Powell, they have forgotten the lessons of 1939.
Mr. Weinberger, defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is chairman of Forbes magazine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.