Attack Upon Iraq Merits Support

Toogood Reports ^ | 8/15/02 | Carol Devine-Molin

[Gopblond]

It is not just Iraq's possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that creates the unacceptable menace to the global community. Certainly, there are other regimes, such as North Korea, Iran, Syria and even Cuba, that are both "rogue nations" that cooperate with terrorist organizations, and reportedly belong to the WMD club, as well. But it's only Saddam's regime that has exhibited this proven propensity for insatiable warmongering, use of horrific weaponry, and violent incursions into neighboring lands for the purpose of takeover.

Remember, Saddam has a history of unmitigated and unwarranted use of aggression that is manifest to even the casual observer, including the launching of a lengthy war against Iran (1980-1988) that led to over a million deaths. And, among the "rogue nations" subset, it's only Saddam's regime that has actually utilized a Weapon of Mass Destruction (specifically chemical warfare), and against his own people, no less! It's this totality of factors that are unique to Saddam, and which make him so malignant, so incredibly dangerous. And this is not to discount that US strikes upon other rogue regimes may become necessary at some future time.

Succinctly put, Iraq has proven to be: 1) a "rogue regime" that has a history of involvement in state sponsored terrorism. In other words, Saddam utilizes terrorist organizations as surrogates to carry out dirty work against those that they have mutually targeted; 2) Saddam again is developing biological, chemical and nuclear warfare, in violation of the Gulf War surrender agreement; 3) He is an absolutely monstrous dictator that has already administered a Weapon of Mass Destruction against his own people, the Kurds, and likely has no inhibitions about utilizing this type of weaponry again; and, 4) Saddam has demonstrated Hitler-like aggression, pursuant to his invasion of nearby Kuwait, and his plans to overtake Saudi Arabia before being rebuffed by the US-led coalition in 1991.

Make no mistake, Saddam is a loose cannon more than capable of committing atrocities, not only against the US, but anyone that gets in his way. Given Saddam's psychological profile, he undoubtedly plans to retaliate, or "get revenge" so to speak, against America, the architect of the Gulf War. In fact, there appears to be emerging evidence that he has already aided and abetted terrorist activities against American targets such as the 1993 Twin Towers bombing, and perhaps the Oklahoma City bombing, as well.

Notwithstanding the twaddle put forth by the naysayers and critics of President Bush, US plans to effectuate "regime change" in Iraq does indeed constitute a legitimate use of force. Since the cease-fire agreement was brokered more than a decade ago, time and time again Saddam has breached the surrender accord. He has refused to let UN arms inspectors into Iraq to investigate the status of his weaponry since 1998, which is a considerable time frame. In view of Saddam's history, we cannot permit this growing peril to go unchallenged.

Before the Gulf War, Saddam developed caches of biological and chemical weaponry, and had an incipient nuclear program underway. We now know that Saddam will have a nuclear weapon within one or two years, and approximately three nuclear bombs by 2005, which certainly represents a heinous threat. It would be fair to assume that America and Israel are probably at the top of Saddam's nuclear hit-list.

In almost five years, Saddam has had ample opportunity to reactivate and refine his efforts in the WMD arena, as corroborated by a variety of intelligence sources, including high-tech and satellite data, and statements provided by a host of defectors and escaped Iraqi scientists forced to work on WMD projects.

The other key point to be made is that "pre-emptive defense" is justifiable during times of war, especially salient when WMD are in play due to the catastrophic nature of the weaponry that can cause mass annihilation of peoples. Pre-emptive strikes are totally consistent with the "rules of engagement" in warfare, and always have been so, since the stakes are high and involve the survival of our nation and our way of life. It is reasonable, and desirable, to engage in a "first strike" when there is cogent evidence that an enemy assault is imminent. America has the moral imperative to do everything in its power to prevent WMD from being utilized, including "regime change" in Iraq. Moreover, as Rush Limbaugh notes, our actions against Iraq will constitute a deterrent to any nation planning to strike out against America in any manner, either directly or by use of proxies.

If military confrontation with Iraq becomes inevitable, Saddam has promised to eschew "desert warfare", and force American troops to engage in urban warfare and guerrilla "street fighting" in order to make it a very bloody battle, maximizing the number of American casualties in particular. Saddam plans to pull-up the drawbridge and hunker-down in the city of Baghdad, with his troops interspersed among the civilians, thereby forcing American and allied troops to enter the city for the fight. And, of course, Saddam wrongly implies that the US is willing to risk a significant number of Iraqi civilians casualties during this process.

But the Americans are not stupid! As noted by retired Army Colonel David Hackworth, we would immediately turn off the water and electricity, which would trigger mass evacuation of the city at some point. It appears that the US plans to utilize some high-tech options as well, including the High Power Microwave (HPM) that will "destroy electronic equipment in command, control, communications and computer targets" (David Windle, Newscientist.com). There is also talk of inundating the populace with intolerable sounds and vibrations that would cause people to flee. In any event, the US military is planning options for many possible scenarios.

Lastly, as to recent statements by House Majority Leader Dick Armey that pre-emptive strikes are unwarranted and illegal under international law, he is dead-bang wrong. Unfortunately, during the course of his tenure in Congress, Mr. Armey has generally been a public relations disaster for the GOP. And I certainly wish him well in his impending retirement.

[Gopblond]

Condi Rice has it right: we are obliged morally to take out this monster who poses a profound threat.