Directions from Amman:
Toward the south (SA), east (Iraq), and the Pleasant Land (WB) (Dan 8:9)
|
|
Posted on 07/29/2002 5:38:10 PM PDT by Pokey78
As speculation mounts about the kind of campaign the Americans will launch to overthrow Saddam Hussein, allied misgivings are becoming more pronounced.
Yesterday the New York Times reported that Washington was thinking of going straight for the jugular by attacking Baghdad and key military centres, in the hope that the Ba'ath regime would quickly crumble.
At the same time, King Abdullah of Jordan told Tony Blair that the Arab world opposed an assault on Iraq; priority should be given, rather, to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That is a view widely held by members of the European Union.
The implicit assumption of those urging restraint on America is that the present situation is better than anything that might flow from Saddam's demise. That is to hold out very little hope both for the UN and for the Middle East.
The Iraqi tyrant has done everything he can to thwart the resolutions passed by the Security Council after his forces had been driven out of Kuwait in 1991. The key moment in that pattern of obstruction was the collapse in 1998 of the UN Special Commission (Unscom).
Since then, Iraq has been free of international weapons inspectors. The Clinton administration acquiesced in that defiance of UN authority. There is no reason why its successor should do the same, all the more so since the terrorist attacks last September.
Nine days after that horror, George W. Bush told Congress that his quarrel was not only with al-Qa'eda and the Taliban but with any government that provided aid to terrorists.
Although no direct link has been found between Baghdad and the September 11 hijackers, its support for terrorist action against America and Israel is beyond doubt.
Ten years ago, it was implicated in a plot to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. And since the start of the second Palestinian uprising, Saddam has proved himself the staunchest backer of suicide bombers by giving cash to their families.
Such an enemy will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction to advance its cause. Saddam has already demonstrated that degree of ruthlessness by his gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
It would be wise to assume that, since the departure of Unscom, he has done everything possible to enhance his capacity to bully his neighbours and deter the West by building up stocks of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. That arsenal is a clear threat to world peace.
Given Saddam's record of internal oppression and external aggression, his removal from power alone is a great prize. But the impact of his fall would be much greater than that. It would fire a powerful shot across the bows of all states that sponsor terrorism.
It would serve as a warning to would-be nuclear-armed powers such as Iran. It would remove an important prop to those Palestinians and their backers who would drive Israel into the sea.
It is more difficult to predict what might take the place of the present regime in Baghdad. But if it were a democratic government representing all Iraqis, the effect on the Middle East could be revolutionary.
In its campaign for good governance, the West has, for strategic reasons connected with oil, made an exception of the region. The result has been to entrench authoritarian, corrupt regimes. The removal of the most egregious, in Iraq, could lead to the collapse of clerical rule in Iran and the isolation of the Ba'athist government in Syria.
At the same time, moves towards parliamentary democracy in states such as Bahrain and Jordan could be hastened. The overall result, it has to be admitted, could be the arrival in government of Islamic radicals whose cause has been aided by the shortcomings of current power-holders: Egypt and Saudi Arabia come to mind. But that is not sufficient reason to leave the Middle East in its present, deeply unsatisfactory state.
During the Cold War, the West united in Nato to protect itself from Soviet attack, but also because it believed in the value of democracy. In the age of terror heralded by September 11, military might could again bring about the political transformation of a region deprived for too long of a proper voice.
Rather than distancing themselves from America in this quest, the European democracies should wholeheartedly embrace it.
Saddam's money to Arafat was apparently well spent.
In the 1980s when Reagan rightly declared the Soviet Union the "evil empire", Europeans went wobbly in the knees.
When Reagan deployed mid-ranged Pershing missles in Britain and Germany, the Soviet lackeys ringed air bases in huge anti-war demonstrations.
Reagan held fast. The Soviet Union collapsed.
One thing consistent with the Euros - they are cowardly and brainless. They never learn the lessons of history.
President Bush has learned the lessons and will deploy the Reagan offense again. And again it will surprise the world.
Americans have two things Europeans will never have - brains and guts!!!
Well he's got his priorities and we've got ours. So let him solve the Palestinian problem, and we'll take care of Saddam.
Just to be sure, bomb Saddam and Arafat. (and I know some people in the EU in need of a good bombing).
And I agree (you didn't expect that one, did you?). Europeans never learn from history. In the 1930's they never opposed Hitler, because he could be kept under control they believed (and because they are cowards afraid to take action). Until he marched all over them. And anno 2002 they do the same with Saddam and Arafat, both not very different from Hitler (I bet both have posters of him above their beds).
PS. Americans have two things Europeans will never have - brains and guts!!! - Do European Reagan-fans also fall into that category?
Only place that could place a very hot welcome mat out for Saddam, is HELL.
Thankfully, we have a President and many millions of people that would gladly send him there.
Some are, some aren't. A person who really reads and learns from history would tell how the extraordinary British people (under the leadership of the extraordinary Winston Churchill) stood alone against the Nazis for over a year in the battle of Britain while us Americans waffled about neutrality. The fate of civilization rested on their overmatched shoulders; but they did not falter or even contemplate surrender.
But for their courage, the map of the world would look a lot different (and a lot more Nazi) than it does. It was a superhuman accomplishment. Only an enormously courageous people guided by divine providence could have fought and prevailed under the conditions they faced and the foe they defeated.
That said, the Europeans can be pretty aggravating these-a-days. But I think you will find that the British will be magnificent once all other alternatives are foreclosed (To be fair, the same could be said of America). As to the continent, well, that is a horse of a different color.
Dame Maggie Thatcher BUMP! There in NOTHING this the World as invigorating (or is that invigourating?) as a clear thinking Englishman, even one of the distaff persuasion.
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.
