|
Do you need to buy a birthday, anniversary or holiday gift? Visit the Galleria!  Add your
comments on this week's "What
is the Deal?" column at Uncle Hiram's Bulletin Board.February 16, 2003 What is the deal with the Anti-war Advocates? By Jan A. Larson A recent TownHall.com article by Ross MacKenzie listed a series of arguments that are continually offered up by those opposed to the use of military force to effect the removal of Saddam Hussein. I will address each of those arguments in turn: - The inspectors can't find any weapons. The UN inspectors are not UN investigators. The inspectors are in Iraq to ostensibly verify that Iraq has complied with previous UN resolutions that mandate that Iraq not develop nor possess various classes of weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi regime has maintained that they are in compliance and must demonstrate that compliance to the inspectors. It is not the job of the inspectors to scour the entire nation to try to uncover evidence that such weapons exist; it is Iraq’s obligation to demonstrate compliance. Given that Iraq has had four years to make their weapons programs “inspection proof,” it is certainly not surprising that the UN inspectors have not found a proverbial smoking gun. - The U.S. can't be the world's policeman. Eliminating an ongoing and potentially lethal threat against the United States does not constitute becoming the world’s policeman. The United States was attacked by an organization, Al-Qaeda, with ties to and the support of the Iraqi regime. - The U.S. must get UN approval. Politically, UN approval would be preferable, but practically it is not a necessity. A UN resolution that specifically authorizes the use of force in Iraq would likely mean fence-sitting nations could then justify to their people why they are supporting the United States’ effort in Iraq. As a practical matter, the war against terrorism that was declared on September 11, 2001 does not require any approval. The United States will determine our own destiny and will not be hamstrung by an ineffectual United Nations. - There's no terror connection. Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined links between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda. Saddam Hussein has not hidden the fact that he pays the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. There is a record of a number of the September 11 terrorists having been in Baghdad. While none of Saddam Hussein’s sons were on the flights that struck New York and Washington, there is sufficient evidence that Hussein supports terrorism. - What about the Arab "moderates"? Arab moderates within Iraq will be freed from an oppressive regime and will be able to go about their lives without living in constant fear of oppression. - What about the Europeans? The Europeans, particularly the French and Germans, seemingly have their own agendas, primarily driven by internal politics and economics. Their support is not needed, but likely will eventually come when it is clear it is in their interest to be on the side of the United States rather than on the side of Saddam Hussein. - Bush better make the case or lose the support of the American people. The case has been made to the satisfaction of the majority of Americans. - Let diplomacy work. Diplomacy has had over a decade to work. It hasn’t worked and it won’t work. Saddam Hussein has practiced deception, denial and delay. He expelled the UN inspectors in 1998 and has obstructed the inspectors in 2002-03. - Give peace a chance. How many more times are we going to have to repeat September 11, 2001 before we decide that peace had its chance? Peace will come when Hussein is no longer fueling international terrorism and oppressing the Iraqi people. The events of September 11, 2001 provided ample evidence that we cannot take the chance that such an attack will not happen again. - Powell better make the case. Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN Security Council did just that for all but those most strident opponents. - Do we want to see American soldiers coming home in body bags? No. We also do not want to see an American landmark collapse on fire and thousands of citizens die. We don’t want to live in fear every time we get onto a plane, ride a subway or gather in a public place. We don’t want to turn on the television or radio and see that we are alert status five. Freedom has a price. We must be prepared to pay that price. The men and women in our armed forces are prepared to pay that price. - Make love not war. This certainly demonstrates a level of reasoned thought by anyone offering it as an excuse to leave Saddam Hussein in power. - It's all about oil. This is the most ludicrous of the antiwar arguments. If it were about oil, the United States’ and coalition forces could have marched into Baghdad in 1991 and seized control of Iraq at that time or any time since. In fact, if it were about oil, the sanctions on Iraq could have been lifted at any time and Iraqi oil would have been flooded onto the world market. - Saddam poses no threat to us. It is true that Saddam Hussein’s military cannot attack the United States in an amphibious assault, cannot roll into Washington with a column of tanks or strafe New York with an armada of warplanes. However, the threat scenario facing the United States today is much different than faced in conventional wars of the past. Saddam Hussein’s regime can arm terrorists with weapons that will fit in a hand, suitcase or truck that can kill thousands of people with no warning. The threat is real. It is still possible for war to be averted, but that possibility is entirely within the control of Saddam Hussein. The illogical, emotional ranting of a bunch of non-thinking, sign wielding anti-war protestors will not avert war in Iraq. I would welcome an honest, logical and thoughtful argument as to why the United States should not go to war with Iraq. So far, I have not heard one. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
|
