What is the deal with the Anti-war Advocates?
By Jan A. Larson
A recent TownHall.com article by Ross MacKenzie
(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/rm200302
13.shtml) 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.
—–
Jan A. Larson publishes a weekly commentary, “What is the
Deal?” at the Pie of Knowledge
(http://www.pieofknowledge.com). Guest columnists are
welcome to submit topical, thought provoking articles from the
left or the right.
