Attack Iraq? Should our President lead or follow public opinion?
Just came across this July 10, 2002 article by Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI Editor-at-Large. The article joins a chorus of what-iffing that in the aggregate is the equivalent of a pre-invasion bombing to soften up the territory. In this case, the territory is the worldview of those who would rid the world of WMD threats with pre-emptive strikes. The softening focuses on the alleged lack of a direct threat to American interests by Iraq, and raises the spectre of (many) US soldiers in bodybags as the price for ridding the world of Saddam.
Mr. de Borchgrave's piece ends with this classic VietNam-era kneejerk response to the use of force by the United States: best discuss it in the Senate: "Hopefully the U.S. Senate will get to debate war powers for the commander-in-chief for Gulf War II before the battle of leaks transmogrifies into an alliance between Hussein and bin Laden -- weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in the United States".
Having the Senate debate "war powers" for the commander-in-chief adds 100 additional wannabe commanders-in-chief, and is no way to run a serious business like a war.
It continues with Michael Kinsley's July 10th piece in Slate. Once again, seemingly reasonable and reasoned dialogue on why we need to be cautious in this matter. But, cutting through the elegant prose, one finds two theses that shine as bright as halogen lanterns:
1. The world doesn't agree with our taking out Saddam, as in "Abroad, nearly all of America's major allies are against it".
2. It won't be popular here at home: "Who really wants this war? Polls show that a modest and shrinking majority of Americans will choose military action to remove Saddam Hussein..."
The first point is almost irrelevant. Our allies will rally around our flag, when we plant it firmly in Iraq on the road to Baghdad. Others who may not be our true allies, such as Jordan and Turkey, will help us because it is also in their true best interests. Others, such as France and mighty Belgium and the rest of the Euros can go fish -- we would only have to airlift their small forces to the theater, where the lack of adequate supplies of quiche and a decent merlot will hamper their efforts. Britain and Canada will join with us after we demonstrate our resolve (where do you think we get our bloodthirstiness from, if not from England?).
On the second point, of course if one asks the man in the street do you favor a war with lots of US dead, the answer is going to be "hell no." But if the truer question is posed, the answer is likely to be quite different. That truer question is like the old commercials for oil filters -- "pay me now, or pay me (much more) later". In short, take out Saddam's WMD capabilities, which must mean taking out him and his regime, or be faced with potentially unimaginable domestic US casualties in a future terrorist event using an Iraqi WMD.
In any event, public opinion should be molded by our leadership, and not the other way around. This is not the Clinton administration any more, thank our stars.
Finally, regarding the conclusion in Mr. de Borchgrave's piece about the metastasizing of an alliance between al qaeda and Saddam, there is at least some serious evidence (the Prague meeting) that there already exists a neat little axis of evil between al qaeda and Iraq.
who dares wins
Just came across this July 10, 2002 article by Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI Editor-at-Large. The article joins a chorus of what-iffing that in the aggregate is the equivalent of a pre-invasion bombing to soften up the territory. In this case, the territory is the worldview of those who would rid the world of WMD threats with pre-emptive strikes. The softening focuses on the alleged lack of a direct threat to American interests by Iraq, and raises the spectre of (many) US soldiers in bodybags as the price for ridding the world of Saddam.
Mr. de Borchgrave's piece ends with this classic VietNam-era kneejerk response to the use of force by the United States: best discuss it in the Senate: "Hopefully the U.S. Senate will get to debate war powers for the commander-in-chief for Gulf War II before the battle of leaks transmogrifies into an alliance between Hussein and bin Laden -- weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in the United States".
Having the Senate debate "war powers" for the commander-in-chief adds 100 additional wannabe commanders-in-chief, and is no way to run a serious business like a war.
It continues with Michael Kinsley's July 10th piece in Slate. Once again, seemingly reasonable and reasoned dialogue on why we need to be cautious in this matter. But, cutting through the elegant prose, one finds two theses that shine as bright as halogen lanterns:
1. The world doesn't agree with our taking out Saddam, as in "Abroad, nearly all of America's major allies are against it".
2. It won't be popular here at home: "Who really wants this war? Polls show that a modest and shrinking majority of Americans will choose military action to remove Saddam Hussein..."
The first point is almost irrelevant. Our allies will rally around our flag, when we plant it firmly in Iraq on the road to Baghdad. Others who may not be our true allies, such as Jordan and Turkey, will help us because it is also in their true best interests. Others, such as France and mighty Belgium and the rest of the Euros can go fish -- we would only have to airlift their small forces to the theater, where the lack of adequate supplies of quiche and a decent merlot will hamper their efforts. Britain and Canada will join with us after we demonstrate our resolve (where do you think we get our bloodthirstiness from, if not from England?).
On the second point, of course if one asks the man in the street do you favor a war with lots of US dead, the answer is going to be "hell no." But if the truer question is posed, the answer is likely to be quite different. That truer question is like the old commercials for oil filters -- "pay me now, or pay me (much more) later". In short, take out Saddam's WMD capabilities, which must mean taking out him and his regime, or be faced with potentially unimaginable domestic US casualties in a future terrorist event using an Iraqi WMD.
In any event, public opinion should be molded by our leadership, and not the other way around. This is not the Clinton administration any more, thank our stars.
Finally, regarding the conclusion in Mr. de Borchgrave's piece about the metastasizing of an alliance between al qaeda and Saddam, there is at least some serious evidence (the Prague meeting) that there already exists a neat little axis of evil between al qaeda and Iraq.
who dares wins
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home