mr-knowitall's Diaryland
Diary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another Good Article
New Page 1
The Threat We Couldn't Ignore
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
By Jack Spencer and Olivia Albrecht
"We were right to go into Iraq," President Bush said recently. Is he right?
Before we answer, let's look back at what two politicians were saying about
Saddam Hussein not that long ago.
1) "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction (search) technology, which is a threat to countries in the region,
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
2) "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
Who were these warmongers? Vice President Cheney? President Bush?
Neither. The first quote is from Rep. Nancy Pelosi,D-Calif.,
now House minority leader. The second is from President Bill Clinton.
Both were spoken in 1998, when politicians from both parties were insisting that
Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States.
It turns out, as the Sept. 11 committee report proves, that our pre-war
intelligence about Iraq was inaccurate. Clearly, changes are needed in the
intelligence community. But no one should assume this means we weren't justified
in waging war on Saddam Hussein. Doing so would neglect both the lessons we
should have learned from Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein's threatening track record.
From his first day in power, Saddam's foreign policy consisted of two elements
that directly conflicted with vital U.S. interests: He wanted to destroy Israel
and dominate the Middle East. He pursued his foreign policy by developing and
using weapons of mass destruction, threatening violence against other countries
(including the United States), invading countries, attempting to assassinate
foreign leaders (including the first President Bush), and by supporting and
harboring terrorists.
After his defeat in the Gulf War (search), Saddam agreed to stop his threatening
activities and let the United Nations monitor his compliance. Instead, he
continued to threaten the United States and other nations with violence, went on
a killing spree � murdering thousands who stood against him in Iraq � refused to
cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, continued supporting and harboring
terrorists, and routinely fired at U.S. and British planes enforcing U.N. no-fly
zones.
When one considers Saddam's past actions and words in the context of lessons
learned from the Sept. 11 attacks, it becomes clear that the status quo was not
acceptable.
We learned on Sept. 11 that modern terrorists and terrorist states are not
deterred by threats of retaliation. Al Qaeda knew the United States would strike
back, yet acted anyway. Saddam behaved similarly. He remained defiant in spite
of a decade of threats and isolation.
Moreover, he maintained a WMD program. While it is true that large quantities
of these weapons haven't been found, it's also true that immense amounts of WMD
remain unaccounted for and that there was a strong likelihood that Saddam was
trying to develop the capacity to produce them through dual-use programs.
In addition, U.N. weapons inspectors recently told the Security Council that
they have seen evidence, including satellite photos, that Iraq had transported
dual-use technology out of Iraq in the days before and during the war.
Whether Iraq had anything to do with Sept. 11 or not, Saddam did have direct
ties and ongoing contacts with terrorist groups. He was believed to shelter
several terrorist groups, including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (search) organization
and several Palestinian-sponsored groups. The Sept. 11 commission
acknowledges that there was contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Perhaps
this didn't develop into a "collaborative operational relationship," as the
Sept. 11 commission put it, but Saddam gave us plenty of grounds for assuming
the worst.
A final lesson of Sept. 11 is that the future envisioned by extremist rogue
states and organizations is incompatible with America's security. Our enemies
will use unprovoked violence to pursue their goals. And considering that Saddam
flagrantly violated each of the many Iraq-related U.N. Security Council
resolutions, it's clear his vision of the future was incompatible with that of
the rest of the world, too.
Saddam openly threatened the United States and its allies, demonstrated his
willingness to kill on a mass scale and use WMD and, most importantly, saw the
United States as his primary adversary.
He was given ample opportunities to comply with his obligations to the United
Nations. Had he done so, he could be in Iraq today raping, pillaging and
executing his oil contracts with his Russian and European buddies. But he
isn't, and that makes America �and the world � a safer place.
Jack Spencer is a senior policy analyst for defense and
national security at The Heritage Foundation, where Olivia Albrecht is an
intern.
1:53 p.m. - 2004-07-30
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
previous - next
|
|
|
|
|
|