Posted on 08/21/2002 5:31:39 PM PDT by freeforall
It's always easier for a county [to put off war decisions]. Think of the prelude to World War II, think of all the countries that said, 'Well, we don't have enough evidence.' I mean, Mein Kampf had been written; Hitler had indicated what he intended to do." —Donald Rumsfeld
PRECISELY. The utterance above from our defense chief the other day on Fox News pretty much captured the challenge before President Bush. In the war on terror, do you preempt what you know are enemies that intend to do the United States and its allies great harm? Or do you wait for your enemies to strike another grievous blow? Currently, a number of loudmouthed Republican and Democratic politicians are getting cold feet about action against Iraq and other countries. (Iraq is the proxy case, but their fear is general.) For instance, Brent Scowcroft, a hawk against Iraq under the first Bush administration, in which he served as national security advisor, now says, "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken." Exactly why this might be so seems vague. Best I can tell, it boils down to this: Scowcroft is afraid that our anti-terrorism allies will develop feet as cold as his and run away from the coalition that Bush has been building since shortly after the 9/11 Massacre.
Fortunately, Scowcroft and his weak-kneed fellow stumblers are not the majority of politicians in or out of Congress. The bulk of our elected and appointed officials understand that preemption is a legitimate tool in the war on terrorism. After all, the terrorists use preemption as a matter of course. That's the prime mode of operation for terrorists—to strike without warning. Does anyone doubt that the 9/11 Massacre was a preemptive act? Our enemies have already set the precedent. The only question for us is whether we take them seriously and hit back in the most intelligent way we can.
What is intelligent? Well, many things could be. Strategy and tactics are complex endeavors with endless options. But we certainly know what is not the brightest gem in the defense box. It is not smart to wait around for our enemies to muster their forces and acquire even more dire weapons to use against us. This is what's at stake in dilly-dallying. If we hem and haw about whether we have the perfect amount of intelligence, preparation, and political consensus, we won't get going in time to prevent Iraq—or some terrorist group that it, Iran, or Syria are funding—from acquiring chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and several others already have some of these. The terrorists have publicly avowed their intention, time and again, of making war on the U.S.—and did make war last 9/11. Our agencies have intercepted communications and other hard evidence that shows they intend to up the ante. For instance, recently capture grisly video shows that they have been experimenting on animals with chemical weapons—probably on humans, too.
"Ah," the no-war-now critics say, "but no country has come after us; just rag-tag bands of lucky terrorists. So why get countries involved?"
This is dissembling of the first order. What did they think Afghanistan was if not a country? Why do they think Iraq, Iran, and the others are on our terrorist-sponsoring list? They are countries and they are out to get us and we have the intelligence trails to prove it. The issue isn't whether they mean us harm. The issues are: how soon and how much and what do we do about it?
Well, what about the "allies problem," as Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana recently outlined it? Said Lugar on NBC's "Meet the Press": "We need to have our NATO allies. This is going to be heavy lifting. Unless we plan this carefully, we're likely to destabilize other countries in the Middle East."
I have several things to say about that remark.
First, I think it's both redundant and condescending to President Bush to suggest that he might not have figured out that toppling Iraq "is going to be heavy lifting." Bush knows that and there's no good reason to imply otherwise. His toppling of Afghanistan proved that he was up to heavy lifting. If the likes of Lugar don't know that by now, then they never will know it.
Second, the truth is that we are getting all the help we need from relevant NATO allies—mainly Turkey and Britain. Turkey will provide major operational facilities as well as crucial troops. Ditto Britain, almost always staunchly with us on these things. Germany and several other countries have pledged valuable help, too; and, behind the scenes, have delivered. The NATO situation is fine. Again, there's no reason to assume otherwise. Lugar is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's disingenuous for him to imply doubts about NATO.
Third, the old canard about how going to war in the Middle East might destabilize the region was proven untrue in both Desert Storm and the recent war against the Afghan Taliban theocracy. If anything, the Middle East has grown more stable as a result of such actions. Quite a number of regional countries—most of them Islamic—are decidedly anti-Iraq and pro-U.S. How else do Lugar and his fellow wobblies think we've been able to conduct months of build-up in the region, almost all of it within Islamic Middle Eastern countries? There's every reason to assume that getting rid of the terror-supporting nutcases over there would have further beneficial effects. While they may not always admit it publicly, the truth is that most of the Middle Eastern countries would welcome the U.S.'s knocking off the worst thugs of the region and are proving it by letting us use their countries for operational bases.
In addition to this kind of criticism, we have much to consider from the big media's influential columnists. Take this recent remark by the Washington Post's David S. Broder, sometimes called "the dean of D.C. reporters": "President Bush has been clear about his goal—the removal of Saddam Hussein—but has left the country and the world in the dark about how he plans to do it." Yes, well—wouldn't you keep your plans secret, too, if you were in the president's position? What's the point of a plan—the "how" that Broder bemoans—if your enemy knows about it? Broder's gripe reveals such deep strategic ignorance—or reportorial hubris—that it's almost hard to believe. How could a reporter with his experience even ask such a stupid question? Yet he's apparently serious about it.
Oh, well.
The important element of the story is this: all the shaky legs in Washington won't stop what's rolling on the war road. When President Bush said he was going for the heart of the terrorists—and their supporters—back last September, he meant it. It's clear to almost everyone in D.C. that on this issue Bush is strong and determined. The Scowcrofts, Lugars, and Broders of the Beltway are like mosquitoes buzzing about Bush's head. They are annoying, but too late in their carping. Not grasping the essence of timing to successful strategy, they've made themselves irrelevant by waiting too long to try to thwart the president.
So I say to doubters in the U.S.—but especially overseas—don't make too much of the little political snits you see reported in our media. The war will go on. It will continue methodically, rationally, and fully. Iraq will fall—and, if they don't cease their support of terrorism, so will several other nations. Bush has the military means and the fortitude—and the allies. He will take whatever preemptive action required to prevent another 9/11 Massacre, or worse, from scourging American soil. As Reagan might have said were he cogent and in charge, "You ain't seen nothin' yet!"
Exactly! In your face Scowcroft!
From my sources (ex USAF), it is already under way.
Middle East list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
Tell that to the families of the folks who died on Pan Am flt 103.
"Also reading the same material are the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull; the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson; the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Stark (plus his chief of intelligence) and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George C. Marshall (and his chief of intelligence). Of these men Roosevelt is the only elected official. And he is confronted by an isolationist Congress that steadfastly refuses to listen to any arguement the President might make that America must prepare for war.
"What frustrations Roosevelt must have felt!
"To know what the enemy is doing, but to be unable to tell his opponents in Congress and convince them them of the rightness of his position. Nor can Roosevelt discuss the situation with his supporters and friends. Magic is so secret, so precious, that absolute silence is the order of the day. This element of real life- knowing, but not being able to to do anything about it- is ignored in all the autobiographies, the biographies and the history books."
~~~Marching Orders, the Untold Story of World War Two, Bruce Lee, page 24.
*****************************************************************************************************
Among many other victories, "Magic" brought us Midway, the turning point of the war in the Pacific. Magic and Ultra are estimated to have shortened WW2 by 2 years, before the time that Germany and Japan could develop atomic weapons. Roosevelt could not squander this secret in convincing Congress of the Japanese danger in 1940.
Is a similar secret about Iraq being kept by Bush today for the same reasons?
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.