The Peacenik Top 10: The ten most popular objections to war and some commonsense responses to them

Weekly Standard ^ | 03/06/2003 | Fred Barnes

[ZGuy]

THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.

(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.

(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.

(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.

(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.

(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.

(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.

(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.

(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.

(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.

No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in."

I am at once teared up over the beauty of that statement and blind with rage over those who are so stupid as to put us all in danger because they can't comprehend it.

[JohnGalt]

I wonder if Fred Barnes wrote the same article 12 years ago when he was editor for the New Republic.

[dd5339]

"When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in."

Wow!

Semper Fi

[labowski]

11) North Korea is a greater threat and they have nuclear weapons. So we should go to war against N. Korea instead? Also, N. Korea insist on dealing only with the U.S. So, should we act unilaterally with N. Korea? Hopefully this will end up in the lap of the U.N. right after Iraq and we will all witness the impotence of the U.N. once again and we'll have to gather another coalition of the willing to resolve Dr. Il's ills. Although, I suspect we will be able to convince China, Russia, S.Korea and Japan to turn up the heat unless they want us to take care of it fortright.

[The G Man]

Bump

What a great quote

[StoneColdTaxHater]

one more point on the war for oil angle. If it was about oil, why didn't we just take the oilfields in 1991? Hell, there was no one around to stop us.

[paul51]

If I hear a dim say one more time we shouldn't go it alone, what's left of my brain will freeze

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Spiff]

(12) The U.N. inspectors need more time. According to the terms of the ceasefire, as agreed upon by the United Nations Security Council, Saddam needed to FULLY comply, produce his weapons of mass destruction, and destroy them as the inspectors observed. The inspectors are NOT detectives - it is not their job to root out every last vial of anthrax or chemical weapon-equipped missile warhead. It is their job to OBSERVE Saddam openly destroy ALL of the banned weapons. The inspectors, when even allowed into Iraq by Saddam, have spent 12 years playing a game of cat and mouse/hide and seek with Saddam. Obviously, inspections have not worked for over a decade, why would they work now? The definition of mental illness is repeating the same behavior and expecting different results. It is insanity to continue this charade - this game - and expect that Saddam will stop producing WMD to use against us and our allies.

[Vic3O3]

I missed this quote in the main article the first readtrhu, and thought from your excerpt it was Tony Blair....a bit surprised to see it was C.P.

[nutmeg]

ping

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent ping list.

[Bigg Red]

Nice catch. Thanks for posting it.

Hegewisch Dupa, I share your sentiments about the Powell quote. So powerful, so eloquent. I would love to have seen the face of the Brit when he heard this.

BTW, are you a Polish grandpa?

[Hegewisch Dupa]

No - I'm a Polish a$$

[Bigg Red]

This is great. Thanks for the flag. The quote from Powell gave me goosebumps.

[Warrior Nurse]

\You know I am getting sick and tired of the peaceniks. Not only do I have several family members deployed to Kuwait as well as my best friend. On the morning of Sept 11 around 0800 we were oblivious to what was about to happen in the hours that followed. I saw those building come down and the bodies die and the same at the Pentagon. I was in a class at the time and I said we have just been attacked and we are now a nation at war.

Like Mr. Worlly's song we need to see the video because the peaceniks don't get it. I am not against anyone's right to protest. That is their right but it is folks like me that watch the protestors and not one peep is said against the murderous thug in Iraq.

My President has not gassed any of his own people and committed other atrocities against the citizens of the United States. He also did not go against 12 years of UN(Useless Nitwitts) sanctions. He didn't bomb the WTC in 1993 or Take out the USS Cole or the African Embassies in 1998.

I support my Commander in Chief I have looked him in the eye and shook his hand. As I did with the previous occupant of the WH. There is a huge difference between the two. Our military is proud to fight for GWB he is a leader and a man with moral courage. If you don't agree with me that is your right.

I still think those protesting the war and the president are a bunch of hypocrites where were they when Slick Willie was doing the Missiles for Monica mission(Kosovo)?

[jiggyboy]

Probably didn't have to -- the commies and socialists didn't have the money or the influence on the dimwits that they have now.

Well, since I'm here, let me be so bold as to add a few more:

- "Innocent people will die": Innocent people are being systematically killed by the regime. We have the moral right to stop it.

- "But we supported Saddam in the past": Yep, we fouled that up. The U.S., more than any other nation, have the moral responsibility to correct our mistake.

- "We gave him weapons and the gas that he used to kill the Kurds": Well, Saddam is still the one that gassed them. And see above -- if we gave him the means of death, it's our responsiblity to eliminate them.

- "It's all about oil": (Alternate response -- get ready for this one!) You're GD right it is! Never mind transportation, you can forget about cheap food, CD's, anything with plastic. Remind Californians of the tales of woe from the natural gas price disaster of 2000.

- "Why don't you join the army?": Thank God we have a volunteer army. I'd be a lousy soldier; the guys who are there are all better than me. They'll do what they do best so I can do what I do best -- that's America.

[JohnGalt]

Wilsonianism is a defensible position, it's just not a conservative position.

This is a conservative website right?