DO WE NEED TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

CommonConservative.com ^ | 5/1/03 | Tom Adkins

[TomAdkinsCC]

DO WE NEED TO FIND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

Of Lessons Learned in Sweet Fall Evenings-

by Tom Adkins

It was a beautiful fall evening in 1975, my freshman year at West Chester University. Friday night's frat party blowout was complete with idiotic antics, lawn retching and drunken girls. Lots of drunken girls. Nevertheless, I was bored. I'd just stepped off the porch, when a girl from my history class ran up to me in tears. "Tom, you HAVE to help…Jane is upstairs, WAY too drunk…with four guys."

My choice was stark: obey the unwritten rule that guys don't interfere with "guy business." Or, rescue a very nice young lady about to fall into deep trouble. I never hesitated. I went back in, kicked the door open, and demanded my "best friend's girlfriend" leave with me now or I'd start kicking some ass. I lied. I bluffed. But it worked. The next day, I discovered I lost "respect" among my "friends."

I have no regrets.

Today, after spending $70 billion and over 100 American lives, George W. Bush is facing barbs from the domestic left and our "friends" across the globe. Unilateralism! Immorality! Illegitimacy! Cowboys! And of course, the most vulnerable criticism of all: what happens if we don't find those weapons of mass destruction? You remember…the reason we went in to Iraq in the first place?

My answer is simple: I don't give damn. Not because George Bush is a Republican. Not because I love war. But because it was the right thing to do.

Now that we liberated the cradle of civilization, we've discovered the horrific depth of Saddam Hussein's sick tyranny. Wanton murder of innocents. Sadistic torture for fun. Institutionalized rape for sport. Human shredding machines. Children …children…tortured and jailed for years, to coerce parents. Every Iraqi citizen faced every form of gruesome torture that could be devised by evil minds. Now, they are free. Who can doubt that Iraq's impending transition difficulties are preferable to the awful status quo? To be clear, even without terrible weapons, someone should have done this long ago.

Let's examine that weapons issue. We know Hussein has them, or had them. He liked using them. And he wanted more. If we can't find them, where are they? Evidence points to Syria, who also harbors Iraqi fugitives. But soon, like other terrorist nations, Bashir Assad will bend or be broken. That leads to another quiet stroke of Bush wisdom.

Why Iraq first? Because terrorist hotbeds Syria, Iran, and the West Bank are now geographically divided. There's a new sheriff in town, bringing the rule of law, freedom, human rights, and democracy, the most feared weapons of mass destruction to the remaining tyrannical and theocratic states. Bush's vision of clear goals using precise power with minimal civilian casualties verified the brilliant Sun Tzu paradox that extreme violence tempered with benevolence creates the perfect victory. Korea, Vietnam and Somalia memories are exorcised. Iraq is free.

But the WMD inquisition begets a far deeper issue: does the United States have the right to attack other nations simply for regime change? Under what circumstances? And is pre-emption acceptable doctrine?

Now that oceans don't protect us, pre-emption and regime change have become American security requirements. But let's make the case for pre-emption and regime change for humanity's sake. First, tyrannical regimes consider American freedom their greatest enemy. Therefore, they are dangerous to our security. Second, Americans claim all men are born with inalienable rights. Everyone. Therefore, shouldn't we fight for those who have rights torn away? True, some societies like France and Sweden merrily surrender to the collective. But there is a clear case that for most, servitude is involuntary. As the most powerful and free nation on Earth, do we not have a moral imperative to rescue them?

Some of our "friends" disagree. Particularly those who broke the useless UN trade sanctions with Iraq, such as France, Germany and Russia, and those who engaged in the same practices, such as China. Now they angle for colonialist spoils. As for domestic objections? Except for the truly naïve, they are politically driven. All objectors cast aside even minimal moral standards to maintain Hussein's stranglehold for cynical self-interest. There can be no greater shame.

Therefore, I say to anyone who demands any pop-legitimization of this war: "Who's next?" With or without weapons of mass destruction, with or without United nation's blessing, this war was just. Cowboys? Maybe. But cowboys always save the girl from the railroad tracks.

Or frat party rapes.

Or rescue the world from hideous tyranny.

For that, I don't need to find a big bomb in a bunker.

[Russell Scott]

According to the axis of weasels we do. If there is one thing I hope our government does, it is to appease and make the weasels happy. NOT!

[LibWhacker]

IMHO, we have no obligation to save such people from themselves. If they want to live in tyranny, that's their business.

Furthermore, if no WMD are found it's irrelevant.

The fact is, Saddam Hussein was obligated to cooperate with inspectors and he didn't. That alone was justification for going to war because he very well may have been hiding a WMD program and that we could not permit.

[Leftymasher]

Isn't it better to take their ammo from them and let them in on the search? then when THEY'RE the ones who find them THEY'RE gonna be the ones who look stupid. I for one would be VERY HAPPY to see that!

[doug from upland]

Yes, we have to find them. I expect that we are going to need to conduct similar operations to get rid of other bad guys. It is important that the president was up front in the reason for going in if he is to get broad based support the next time. If we have to go to Damascas because 11 terrorist organizations are headquartered there, and our president has a track record of telling the truth, he will be supported. Let the RATS pull Gulf of Tonkin crap. We are better than that.

[Calpernia]

Great article! Nicely written.

I may need another definition though as to what are WMD; well, at least in the sense concerning Iraq. I have seen numerous posts here at FR about findings of weapons and materials that Iraq was banned from having. So, according to the Iraqi Sanctions and Resolutions, we already supported the invasion. Because, if you want to split hairs, chemical weapons aren't WMD, they are "Area denial," and terror weapons that don’t destroy anything. And Chem weapons have been grouped with WMD via our educating media. So were we looking for nuclear weapons specifically? Or weaponary that was banned to Iraq?

[DougF]

The reason it is important to find WMDs - we need to validate the credibilty of the USA intelligence agencies for the future, mostly with the US public.

But in my mind this war has been justified by the numerous links that have already been established with Al Qaeda and 9/11.

Does anyone remember 9/11?

[clockwork]

It might help Colin Powell's credibility rating if we do find WMD. Just a thought.

[Calpernia]

Third world scapegoat that couldn't hurt a flea? hmmm, tell that to these people:

BTW, there are still flags where I live.

[pfflier]

There are no American flags on the cars anymore?

I don't know what planet you are on, but I see more flags than ever and more bumper stickers shouting out American pride. I'm talking about Southern California and Arizona.

[TheDon]

"The fact is, Saddam Hussein was obligated to cooperate with inspectors and he didn't. That alone was justification for going to war because he very well may have been hiding a WMD program and that we could not permit."

Exactly right. It is a trap the pro-tyranny crowd would like everyone to fall for, but don't

[Leftymasher]

I have faith that we'll still find that there are WMD's, but realistically there hasn't been rock solid proof of Iraq connections to Al Queda. They're probably there, but there's more police work to be done. I just don't get why we wont let the UN in - they already know how to do the work, we've got the intelligence and we can watch them to guarantee their's no funny business. It works out for everyone.

[discostu]

We don't have to find them for one simple reason: now that we have control of the country our detractors will say they were planted after the fact. If we could have found them earlier it would have been great, but at this point they're going to claim they're fake and stick to their talking points so it really doesn't matter.

[TheDon]

"The attack and destruction of Iraq was predicated on the the removal of weapons of mass destruction. "

Incorrect. You are new around here aren't you? DU maybe?

[RusIvan]

But in my mind this war has been justified by the numerous links that have already been established with Al Qaeda and 9/11. +++

Accually here are same allergations like about the existance of WMD in Iraq.
No proffs of both.

[LibWhacker]

That's pure leftwing BS. Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement with us in 1991 to comply with all UN resolutions. It did not so we started shooting again. If you make an agreement with us, you'd better keep it.

[hove]

All righty then....is Mugabe next??

[TheDon]

Actually, we went after Saddam and Co. because they wouldn't comply with the UN inspection process. President Bush said it so many times pundits were complaining he was getting repetitious. It was, and is, the Europeans and the left in this country who tried to confuse the issue.