By Jed Babbin on 9.4.02 @ 12:03AM
The president's indecision has produced an eerie feeling in Washington and among our allies, both real and Saudi.
President Bush is making life very difficult for his supporters.
His policy requires a "regime change" in Iraq, which means Saddam
has to go. Saddam is not one to go quietly, which means that
military action is necessary. But the President keeps saying that
no decision on military action has been made. Poor Vice President
Cheney was sent out last week to start making the case against
Saddam, but he was left twisting in the wind, reciting the "no
decision" mantra. The president's indecision has produced an eerie
feeling in Washington and among our allies, both real and Saudi. An
essential part of leadership is communication. If the president
wants to unite the American people behind military action, and have
any chance of gaining support from our allies among the EUnuchs of
NATO, he has to announce a decision, and explain the reasons for
it. He risks much by delaying, because the chatter in Washington
and overseas is building a tide of opinion against action.
The New York Times has literally turned itself inside
out, dedicating its front page and op-eds into a campaign against
military action. It has pumped up statements by the Republican Old
Guard to chastise Dubya for going ahead against Saddam. Last
Sunday, Colin Powell -- always first for appeasement -- said that
inspections would be a first step towards resolving the Iraq
crisis. According to the BBC, Mr. Powell added that the U.S. needed
to present "all available evidence" of our "suspicions about Iraq
to the international community so that an informed judgment could
be made about possible military action." That, of course, amounts
to surrendering the decision to those who will leave Saddam where
he is. It's time to rein Mr. Powell in. Again.
After the first and second Punic Wars, the threat to Roman
interests in Africa revived because the Carthaginians weren't
defeated. The great orator Cato the Elder ended each of his
speeches with, "Carthago esse delendum" -- "I am of the opinion
that Carthage must be destroyed." Mr. Bush is saying, in essence,
"Saddam esse delendum" but nothing more.
Many of us who remember Vietnam also remember the danger of a
divided country in wartime. The war against terror is different,
and the president will have the support he needs from Americans and
Congress if only he asks for it. Without delay, the president
should make a series of speeches announcing the decision to remove
Saddam's regime by military action, and asking the American people
for their support.
Mr. Bush needs to drive home several points. First, he needs to
explain that our best intelligence says that Saddam has chemical
and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them, right now.
He needs to say that Saddam is buying and producing more of them,
and that we know he intends to use them against us. Our best
intelligence says that Saddam is less than two years away from
having nuclear weapons. Mr. Bush should say that if we wait for
Saddam to get them, we will have to fight a nuclear war to put him
out of business. That prospect alone requires action be taken
now.
The president should explain that we know Saddam is a
significant part of the terrorist network. Mr. Bush's speech need
not give the details of all our intelligence. But he does need to
say as much as he can. We know Saddam funds the Palestinian suicide
bombers. Intelligence and public evidence given by defecting Iraqi
officers exposed the large terrorist training camp at Salman Pak,
south of Baghdad. Terrorists -- probably including al-Qaeda -- have
been training there for years. Saddam may or may not have helped
al-Qaeda in the 9-11 attacks, but he is now harboring al-Qaeda that
fled Afghanistan, as well as other terrorists who still train in
Iraq and are funded by it. The president should say that we have
good reason to believe that Saddam will share chemical and
biological weapons of mass destruction with terrorists. And those
terrorists will use them to attack Americans here and abroad.
As Khidir Hamza -- who ran Saddam's nuclear weapons program for
two decades -- told me, Saddam will give chemical and biological
weapons to terrorists to use against Americans. And, as Dr. Hamza
also told me, Saddam will do anything to get nuclear weapons to
deter us and to impose his will on his neighbors, including
Israel.
Mr. Bush needs to go back to his own method of post 9-11
diplomacy: make them an offer they must refuse. It's the good guy
version of the Corleone family tactic. In his September 20 speech
to Congress last year, Mr. Bush demanded that the Taliban surrender
Osama bin Laden to us. He knew they wouldn't give us OBL, but the
demand placed America in the position where war was clearly
justified by their refusal. Britain's Tony Blair may give Saddam a
deadline for allowing the unlimited weapon inspections required
under the 1991 cease-fire agreements. Saddam will never accept
unlimited inspections, and establishing a very short deadline for
him to do so frees us to act -- unilaterally or otherwise -- any
time after that deadline. Mr. Blair shouldn't do this, Mr. Bush
should.
Mr. Bush also needs to send a message to the Iraqi people. We
will defeat Saddam, and then help rebuild Iraq as a free nation,
which a free people will rule. We come as a liberator as we did to
France and the rest of Europe -- including Germany -- in World War
II. Mr. Bush should speak directly to the Iraqi people and say that
as we did in Bosnia, and as we are doing in the Philippines and
elsewhere, we act to free Muslims from oppression. Our enemies are
Saddam and the terrorism produced by the ideology of Islamicism,
about which more in another column.
Mr. Bush's last point must also be that when we defeat Saddam,
the war on terror will not be over. He needs to identify the enemy
that stalks freedom the world over. Saddam is, after all, a secular
dictator. Unlike the mullahs of Iran, he doesn't cloak his outlawry
in a religious disguise. Islamicist terror, such as Iran sponsors,
and the Saudis fund, is the long term, bitter enemy of Americans
and all who love freedom. Our war against it began in Afghanistan,
and will not end in Iraq. The true identity of this enemy needs to
be explained, but not in the context of Iraq.
Mr. Bush must also ask Congress for a resolution authorizing
this war. He will get it if he shares with Congress the reasons
behind his decision. There will be disagreement and debate, but
that is what our nation requires to unite behind this war. Last
September, Mr. Bush calmed America and told us to go back to
normal. We did. But "normal" in America is not war. We need to get
ourselves in the mindset we need for war, which can only be created
by Mr. Bush's reasoned leadership. America will be a safer place
when Mr. Bush can say, "Saddam delendum est." Saddam has been
destroyed.
topics:
Business, Islam, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Africa, Nuclear Weapons