Undistinguished Alumnus
Mike Marchand
Let's say you are the President, and the date is July 1, 2001. And let's say that America's intelligence systems (as they failed to do in reality) put together all the pieces and stated that a terrorist attack from a foreign group, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, would strike U.S. soil sometime in the next three months and kill thousands of Americans. Do you:
A. Launch a fierce preemptive attack, designed to destroy the threat before it can materialize, or
B. Petition the United Nations to draft resolutions, plead with the other four members of the U.N. Security Council to gain acceptance, and wait for Congressional approval?
Obviously hindsight tells us that the proper answer is the first. Yet common sense tells us that as well. You wouldn't know that by listening to those people against a preemptive strike against Iraq, though. I admit, the situation may not be quite as dire as the hypothetical posted above, but it's only tragic hindsight which has shown us how severe the threat al-Qaeda was 15 months ago. The threat Saddam Hussein poses may not be exactly the same, but it's similarly imminent and clear.
Our Commander-in-Chief, regardless of whether it's George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton — or, in our little hypothetical game, you — has the authorization by our Constitution to protect America and its citizens. Yet the President's opponents can think of a million different reasons not to act, but can't grasp the fundamental reason why we should.
Global politics and foreign policy can be complicated, but in this case, there are simple questions, and there are simple answers. Is Saddam Hussein a vicious and evil tyrant? Does he possess weapons that can cause unimaginable horrors? Is he attempting to acquire nuclear weapons? The answer to all of these is yes. We've known this for years, of course, but a 50-page dossier issued last week by the British government reinforces these facts.
Another equally simple conclusion that can be drawn is that Hussein will not stop based on any international resolution made against him. He's violated more than a dozen U.N. resolutions already in the decade-plus since the end of the Gulf War. And history teaches us that in the face of a tyrannical threat, diplomacy not backed by the threat of force only emboldens the tyrant — it does not contain him.
The onus should therefore be on those who do not support action against Iraq to provide a compelling case. So far, they have yet to come up with even a coherent case. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Senate Majority Leader and the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington, can only express "concern." Last week, he thought it over and heightened his rhetoric; he now expresses "grave concern."
Al Gore, who broke ranks with his own party and supported the Gulf War, admonished President George H.W. Bush for leaving Saddam in power, and served as Vice President in an administration which made several unilateral strikes against Iraq, made a speech last week in San Francisco that threw out that legacy and argued feebly against it. Even The New Republic, which twice endorsed Gore for President, said the speech "sounded like a political broadside against a president who Gore no doubt feels occupies a post that he himself deserves."
And there are still grumbles internationally that an independent America that acts in its own self-defense is more terrifying than a madman with weapons of mass destruction. German Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin compared George W. Bush to Hitler by saying Bush was using Iraq to shift the focus away from domestic issues in a political campaign. Ironically, this statement took place in the midst of the German election season; though the anti-Americanism played well and center-left Chancellor Gerhard Schröder won reelection, he thankfully relieved Frau Däubler-Gmelin of her duties.
To a certain extent, the objections are steeped in good intentions. While President Bush and his braintrust, buttressed by the support of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have laid out a case for action against Iraq, they've been somewhat caught up in their mission to address some bigger questions. If preemptive action against terror networks and rogue states is going to be the Bush Doctrine, we should at least have an honest discussion about our rules of engagement in the future, if for no other reason than to reassure our allies.
But that should not be used as an excuse to sit around and wait while the threat grows. In three months' time, Saddam Hussein may very well have a nuclear weapon. This would be a problem not just because he could detonate it on a whim, but also because it would give him leverage he doesn't possess now. It would be easy for him to invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia if he can blackmail the United States with a weapon aimed at Tel Aviv, or London, or Washington. The United States and the United Kingdom are the only ones who'll stop him now; who will stop him then?
There have been months to talk about it. Action is needed now — not more talking.
Mike Marchand, class of 2001, is a big mean ogre who lives in an enchanted forest. He did go to the Aerosmith concert two weeks ago, and it rocked. Contact him at Marchand.3@nd.edu. His column appears every other Monday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, September 30, 2002
