Those seeking a 'smoking gun' had better hope they don't get it

The United States and a constantly increasing number of allies are coming closer and closer to holding a despicable tyrant responsible for his past actions and rendering him unable to continue them both at home and abroad.

So, some people are upset. An entire dovecote of "anti-war activists" (at least for this war, and for this president - they were far less dovish when Bill Clinton attacked Serbia) is chirping its alarm over the fact that we have a president who understands that his principal task is the protection of our lives and interests.

Their exaggerations are so many, and their contact with reality so flimsy, that's it's hard to know where to start to hold them to account. Let's start with the big rally that was held in Washington last month.

I have a friend who lives in northern Virginia, a retired State Department officer who loves his country and who protested the Vietnam War in the '60s. Seized with serious doubts about the president's plans for Iraq, he crossed the Potomac to see if the rally would support his qualms.

He hasn't changed his mind about Iraq, but he was aghast at the march. Here's what he e-mailed me:

"I went to the March for Peace for three reasons: to register my anti-war views, and to voice my views on administration policy, and to show my niece and nephew (who came along) that the United States is a peaceful country with millions of citizens united for peace. But then I saw with my own eyes the hypocrisy and vicious hatred that so many marchers had for America. Mike, those people were openly anti-American. I saw it with my own eyes. You could cut the anti-Ameri- canism with a knife. . . . The ANSWER event was not a peace march - it was a virulent anti-American march. . . .

"For the demonstrators there is some kind of moral equivalence between us and Saddam."

Not terribly surprising, considering that ANSWER, the group that sponsored the march, is affiliated with an unreconstructed hard-left Marxist fringe that in the past has expressed admiration for the murderous Joseph Stalin, dictator Kim Jong-Il of North Korea and war crimes indictee Slobodan Milosevik.

Oh, but the marchers didn't necessarily support that? OK, think about who would go to a civil rights march sponsored by the Ku Klux Klan, and then wonder why ANSWER's sponsorship was fine by those attendees.

Next, there are all the people who keep demanding more proof that Saddam Hussein has both evil intentions and the means to carry them out. True, there have been no Cuban-missile-crisis photos - yet - but there are at least two major talks they haven't heard yet, either. One will come this Wednesday, when Secretary of State Colin Powell speaks to the United Nations, and the other will come after that, when President Bush addresses the nation again.

Anybody who doesn't think Saddam is a threat both to his neighbors and the West has not been paying attention - deliberately, I believe, because U.N. inspectors themselves say he has tons of lethal stuff he won't account for - but those speeches should satisfy all but the same people who attended the "March for Peace."

What is truly dangerous is the demand by some that they must see a "smoking gun" before they'll back Bush. In that, they show less support for America than the leaders of Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and the Czech Republic, who sent a letter last week proclaiming "New Europe's" strong support for Bush. France and Germany had better start worrying about the perils of unilateralism.

In truth, what would a "smoking gun" be? Well, it might be a mushroom cloud forming over Manhattan; or a radioactive "dirty bomb" ex- ploding a few blocks upwind of the Capitol or the White House; or letters full of finely milled anthrax being sent not to a few congressional offices but to hundreds; or a thousand vials of smallpox infecting tens of thousands of people, with a death rate of 30 percent or more among the unvaccinated victims.

Folks, we don't need those kinds of smoking guns. We don't even need them drawn from their holsters. We may not be able to find each and every member of al-Qaida yet, but as the president said Tuesday, we've found a number of them, and they won't be bothering us any more. Their leader, Osama bin Laden, hasn't been reliably heard from since December 2001, and could be among the group Bush mentioned.

It's no easy decision to go to war, and I even have some sympathy for Bill Clinton, who has been strongly criticized for not dealing with terrorism and Saddam after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and subsequent terror attacks abroad.

But that was all prior to Sept. 11. We've seen two of our tallest buildings fall in fire and ruin, seen people jump from the 80th floor because that was better than being incinerated in their offices, seen our military headquarters lethally attacked.

Still, you may want more than this. If you're patient for a week or a month, I think you'll get it.

[Yours is an argument for never, ever starting any wars. You either don't know it or you're trying to pretend otherwise.] I've been trying to tell you that.

Um, ok, then we, uh... agree.

And you keep saying that Bush has a plan to deal with unpredictable consequences which is impossible.

I don't think I said that "Bush has a plan", as much as I said that you don't know that he doesn't. Which you don't. And by "plan", I don't mean, "plan to deal with ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES (asteroid falls, Second Coming, Canadian surprise attack, etc.)". I just mean "plan". I hope you understand now.

I agree with you that he does not and can not possibly have a Plan To Deal With Any And All Unforeseen Circumstances. That would be, well, impossible, and only a fool would expect him to have such a plan, or chastise him for not having such a plan, in the first place. Right?

we just need to realize that unpredictable consequences make wars much more risky than other courses of action

And just what the heck makes you think that "we" don't realize that? Sheesh, again you're back to the "if they disagree with me, they all just haven't thought about it as deeply as I have" line.

Was Vietnam thought about? [..]

No, Vietnam was not thought about at all. Nobody in the world thought about it. (What kind of fool question is this?)

Anyway, why are you changing the subject? (Iraq)

You insist Iraq has been thought about,

I'm quite sure it has. You, in your lofty position, are quite sure that it hasn't. "Bush hasn't thought about it at all!" says you, on the internet.

but I hear lots of war propaganda which doesn't give me confidence in that.

I'm sorry to hear that. Your lack of confidence is a personal issue for you to work through on your own. Good luck with that.

WMD in terrorists hands are a real potential problem. Has Saddam had contacts with terrorists? No hard evidence so far,

What you mean is, YOU HAVEN'T SEEN any hard evidence so far. As in, if they have hard evidence (which they may), they haven't sent it to Newsweek.

People keep making this mistake of thinking that they are important intelligence figures. To many people, if they haven't seen any evidence, then, why, there's no evidence! (Here's a hint: Look up the word "classified" in the dictionary.)

Will it turn out ok? I sincerely hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I'll take that bet. I bet the US wins this war, you bet otherwise. Million bucks. Deal?

Of course Vietnam was thought about. It just wasn't imaginable that we could lose. I'm not changing the subject, just pointing out that there are consequences to going to war versus the alternatives. We could have done nothing in Vietnam and had the same result with a lot less tragedy. You are going to say it's an obvious truism and not applicable, but it's a clear example of war's unpredictable outcomes.

I have always said we would win the war but could lose in the longer run once we are tied down in the country. The military threats posed by civil war, Kurdish independence, Iran's and Turkey's possible involvement is enough to convince me that there could be very unpredictable outcomes. Not to mention Islamic takeover, chaotic uncontrolled areas that can harbor terrorists, threats to the oil supply, etc.

Of course Vietnam was thought about. It just wasn't imaginable that we could lose.

It "wasn't imaginable"? Sure it was. Anyway, we didn't "lose" that war.

I'm not changing the subject, just pointing out that there are consequences to going to war versus the alternatives.

Wow, thanks professor. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!

Talk about condescending. Nobody BESIDES YOU has given this any thought. Nobody BESIDES YOU knows that there are consequences to going to war versus the alternatives. Don't you know how condescending you are being? Truly irritating; you don't even grant your opponents the common courtesy of assuming they've thought this through. If they disagree with you, they haven't thought it through - QED. That's your story and you're sticking to it, right?

Get real. Other people besides you have brains, in case you didn't know.

We could have done nothing in Vietnam and had the same result with a lot less tragedy.

I'm really not interested in discussing counterfactual alternative histories here. It really is an attempt to change the subject on your part. You do seem a little hung up about Vietnam, and perhaps that is coloring your view here, I don't know....

I have always said we would win the war but could lose in the longer run once we are tied down in the country.

I see. That's your opinion, and it's duly noted. Thanks for sharing. We'll see what happens.

... is enough to convince me that there could be very unpredictable outcomes.

Argh. OF COURSE there "could be" "unpredictable outcomes". Even the most hawkish of hawks would agree with this. After all, just exactly when is this not true? No war, no foreign policy move, and indeed no human endeavor is completely free from the possibility of unpredictable outcomes. That's life.

Again: yours ("let's not fight a war if there could be unpredictable outcomes") is an argument for never, ever fighting a war. Whether you know it or not.

I'm not being condescending, I fully admit there are good possible outcomes to war with Iraq and that there are probably lots of things I'm not aware of that would make war very urgent. But what I'm trying to point out to you in particular is it is useful to look back at the 20th century and be cautious about going to war instead of only pointing out the potential benefits of this war as you do.

I was very nervous, for example, about going to war against Yugoslavia, specifically Serbia. There was a potential for the war to destabilize the Balkans, draw in Russia, restart war between Greece and Turkey, or other possibilities. In the end we accomplished almost nothing except aiding some Islamic groups who are becoming our future enemies.

Again, I'm not trying to change the subject, just pointing out an example of how that war antagonized a potential ally, brought undesirable people into power, and still has the possibility of spilling over into Macedonia and elsewhere. The Iraq war has all those possibilities and is in a much more dangerous and critical area of the world.

I'm not being condescending, [...] But what I'm trying to point out to you in particular is it is useful to look back at the 20th century and be cautious about going to war

And that, my friend, is the condescending part. I don't need this to be "pointed out" by you, or anyone else, thank you very much. Why, exactly, do you assume that I do? Think about it.

instead of only pointing out the potential benefits of this war as you do.

Big fat lie, right here. I most certainly do not "only" point out the potential benefits of this war. There are many potential drawbacks, and I am fully aware of that. Here's one potential drawback: a chemical or biological terrorist attack on mainland U.S. in retaliation, with thousands of lives lost. It's a possibility, and a very real one. I'm very apprehensive about it. Happy? I still think that war is necessary though. (Of course, you can't understand this part; if I support war, I simply must not be aware of any potential drawbacks whatsoever, and their existence needs to be endlessly "pointed out" to me, as if I am a child. The reason for this, of course, is that ONLY YOU have a brain. None of the rest of us do - how can we, if we disagree with you?)

[Yugoslavia history lesson deleted] Again, I'm not trying to change the subject,

Not trying to, perhaps, but you did.

just pointing out an example of how that war antagonized a potential ally, brought undesirable people into power, and still has the possibility of spilling over into Macedonia and elsewhere.

I disagreed with the Yugoslavia bombing too, for what it's worth. Happy?

The Iraq war has all those possibilities and is in a much more dangerous and critical area of the world.

I have no argument with this. Taking this and everything else into account, I still come out thinking that war is probably necessary. Ok?

Of course, you cannot conceive of that: someone who has thought about all the things you've thought about, and yet, come to a different conclusion. How can such a thing be possible? So, I'm sure you'll think of something that (you assume) I haven't "thought through", and then "point it out" to me. Looking forward to it....

Sounds like we agree on most things except the risk/reward tradeoff. You and the administration see the removal of Saddam to help stabilize the region, remove a potential threat to our interests, and help with the war against terrorism. You admit to substantial risks, but only tactical not strategic.

I on the other hand don't see much reward in the best case: another Arab puppet dictactor or an experiment in controlled democracy instead of Saddam and his much hyped WMD programs. The worst case is that we will end up worse off with chaos leading to more terrorism and our withdrawal from the region. I gave some examples from history of bad war outcomes.

My examples don't apply directly (what you call changing the subject) because there are no direct analogies between those situations. I only use them to point out the various ways that strategies can fail in the long run. I agree that the administration has thought through tactical contingencies and has plans for them. But when a strategy fails (e.g. the Kurds decide they want a country, Iran decides to arm Shiites, Turkey turns fundamentalist, etc) we won't have military options.

The essential problem with war is that it greatly increases the chances of those outcomes because it gets people stirred up, opens old wounds, and creates opportunities for evil such as retribution against innocents which causes even more war. You call that an argument against all war but it's not. War is sometimes inevitable, we were attacked on 9/11 and went to war against the Islamic terrorists who attacked us. War against Iraq, even assuming there's a terrorist connection, is not inevitable.

Sounds like we agree on most things except the risk/reward tradeoff.

Probably.

You admit to substantial risks, but only tactical not strategic.

No, I certainly admit to "strategic" risks too. I admit to all risks.

I on the other hand don't see much reward in the best case:

Noted.

I gave some examples from history of bad war outcomes.

That you did. Well, sort of. Yugoslavia's outcome (despite your dire warnings) cannot actually be considered "bad" at all, and even Vietnam's could be considered "good" in the larger context of the Cold War. But yes, you certainly did discuss some historical wars.

But when a strategy fails (e.g. the Kurds decide they want a country, Iran decides to arm Shiites, Turkey turns fundamentalist, etc) we won't have military options.

How do you know? Based on what do you say this? Are you privy to military leadership briefings which the rest of us are not?

You don't know jack squat about what our military is prepared to do and which contingencies they've planned for.

Ok fine, it's not an argument against all war. I go you one better: it's not an argument against any wars. Not this one, not any. In fact it's not even an argument at all. For anything.

War against Iraq, even assuming there's a terrorist connection, is not inevitable.

Actually, given the rhetorical and diplomatic and military buildup, I happen to think it is. But I could be wrong. We'll see. Best,

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.