My buddy Paul and I were talking last week, and he told me he'd seen an advance copy of Bush's speech to the U.N. Curious, I asked him what it said. He said he hadn't seen it all yet, but the first line was: "Ya know, you people suck!"
As it turns out, that's not far from what Bush said to the U.N. General Assembly today.
In excruciating detail, he laid out all the ways in which Iraq had defied agreements and resolutions that the UN had declared "non-negotiable" and "unconditional." Resolution after resolution had implied the threat of force, and yet to date Saddam Hussein has defied them all. In essence, you could say the whole speech came to: "This man's made you look like a bunch of ineffectual fools. Do something about this, or we just might."
Many of those yammering on NPR this afternoon were talking about how there is not sufficient "proof" that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. What they all miss is that of course there isn't solid proof: The man refuses to allow UN inspectors in to find out. There is no need to say anything else. The UN has given "non-negotiable conditions" repeatedly for over 11 years, and each has been met with broken promises to comply. We've been at war in Northern and Southern Iraq for over 11 years now. Isn't it about time we fish or cut bait?
What the President won't say, but which should be obvious to most Americans, is this: Taking Saddam Hussein down is a necessary component in the War On Terror. This is because several regimes (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia among them) are looking the other way at terrorist groups within their region. Why? Partly because they're sympathetic, but partly because they're afraid--afraid of what will happen to their regimes if they don't look the other way. Many of them feel they can't afford to side with the US because of the threat of the Islamofascists within their border, and the monster in Bagdad.
For those of you snickering at the idea that any of the thug-regimes would "side with us," consider that in reality most of the despots who rule in places like Syra, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia only worship power. They have no deep love of anything but themselves. They'll side with whoever seems most likely to win, and until they're sure, they'll stay on the fence. Thus they have no reason to give us much more than lip service and minor assistance until they're sure we're a serious long-term threat. Once they are sure we're a real threat, watch them fall all over themselves to assist us.
Taking down Iraq sends the message that we are dangerous and that we are serious. It also gives us leverage we just don't have right now in that region. It also, frankly, gives us a better strategic position. Taking down Iraq is a major and necessary component of the War On Terror. For diplomatic reasons, the Bushies can't say that out loud, but don't let that fool you: everyone in that region knows it.
The War on Terror can never be won without taking out Saddam Hussein. This must be done. If we want a freer and more peaceful world, for the people of the Middle East as well as ourselves, this horrible mass-murderer must be brought to justice.
Remember also this: the people of Iraq deserve to be freed from this man as much as we do.
Well said !
I think you should amend one of your final statements to read simply "The War on Terror can never be won." There are too many terrorists to catch them all, and the ones we do catch will be replaced by others. I hope that someday our leaders will realize that setting up a war on a concept or an object, like drugs or terror, is bound to fail. The scope is too large for a complete victory. I'm not saying it's not worth trying, only that the terms that they use to describe the war necessitate failure. Wars should be fought against countries. Finally, I truly believe that war really has no winners.