Washington — To those of us with a memory for American military
action in the world the sudden and seemingly increate controversy
over whether to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein is another example of
public persons frivoling with serious matters. Of course, after all
the hand-wringing and strutting subsides, we are going to take out
Saddam Hussein. He is a dangerous man whose treacherous ambitions
have made the most dangerous place on earth — the Middle East —
even more dangerous. For three or more memorable decades during the
last half of the Twentieth Century the most dangerous place on
earth was the geography near the Iron Curtain. American military
might have saved Europe and much of the world from the domination
of tyrants and the incineration of nuclear war. We had no other
option but to resist the tyrants. We have no option now.
When we stood staunchly against Soviet might, “hawkish” America
was the butt of ridicule. Poets and playwrights satirized our
generals and our hard-line politicians. Their plays and films look
foolish now that the Cold War has been concluded peacefully, the
American policy of resistance having been vindicated. When we chose
to resist the Soviets in 1947 they possessed the most powerful army
on earth and the world’s largest empire. Now we face roaming bands
of suicidal terrorists and in a backward country a malevolent
dictator, who is developing weapons that will be able to cause
enormous suffering. Saddam will never have the Soviets’ nuclear
arsenal, but his arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons would be a grave menace to the world. Moreover he is more
apt to use it than the eminently more rational Soviets were to use
theirs. It is only a matter of time before we do the rational thing
and oust him.
Yet from nowhere the handwringers have emerged. I am not
thinking of the anti-war elements on the left. They have been
pretty much marginalized. Their instinctive anti-Americanism gives
them away. Their record of false prophecies and of futile
diplomatic panaceas has discredited them with the American people.
But over the last two weeks we have seen the emergence of such
handwringers as Brent Scowcroft, Congressman Dick Armey and in the
media the New York Times and its confrères. In a
refrain that we have heard before they depict those who would
eliminate Saddam as cowboys and war hawks unmindful of
coalition-building and the long-term consequences of toppling
Saddam. They raise the specter of another Vietnamese quagmire.
The sudden controversy puts me in mind of the very same
controversy that preceded our last attack on Iraq in 1991. In the
most august circles of influence the handwringers were wailing. I
well remember a CNN television show where I was surrounded by the
likes of Al Hunt, Mark Shields, and Pat Buchanan, all prophesying
endless war if we hit Saddam. Even Robert Novak seemed hesitant. My
response then was the same as my response today, to wit: “If Saddam
is so powerful how is it that Israel has remained in existence?”
Why has Saddam not conquered the lands Alexander the Great took
with an army on foot? I was never invited back on that television
show and the false prophets of our doom have never acknowledged
their error.
Today Saddam is vastly weaker than he was in the early 1990s.
His appetite for weapons of mass destruction is as great as ever.
And the Middle East is possibly even more incendiary than it was
before our first attempts at “regime change.” America is going to
have to act. There is no doubt that we shall consult our allies.
Nor is there any doubt that we shall demonstrate the prudence that
we have customarily demonstrated when using our military might. The
poets and the playwrights’ satirization of “hawkish” America is
precisely the opposite of the truth.
As I said at the beginning of this column there is something
almost increate about the present controversy. For months there
seemed to be unanimity about the need to remove Saddam. Nothing has
changed. Yet, now, seemingly without cause, a posture is being
struck by instant opponents of war such as the editors of the
New York Times. The Times has even hazarded its
own credibility by misidentifying Henry Kissinger as an opponent of
the Bush policy, though Kissinger has written that there is “an
imperative for preemptive action” in Iraq.
This controversy is not serious. It merely reflects the
frivolity of some of the country’s leading public persons. In the
end they will quiet down, and after consultation the Administration
will act for the straightforward reason House Majority Whip Tom
DeLay intoned this week: “Defeating Saddam Hussein is a defining
measure of whether we will wage the war on terrorism fully and
effectively.” After September 11 the majority of Americans
understand that we have no alternative. Not even the Soviets gave
us such exigent reason to stand firm.
