From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 20:44:59 MDT
On to Baghdad?: Yes - The
Risks Are Overrated
by Daniel Pipes and Jonathan
Schanzer
New York Post
December 3, 2001
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, the argument over Iraq is
heating up.
The Bush administration has dropped some heavy hints about the
need to rid the world of the Saddam Hussein regime. In response,
some are denouncing this prospect. Their dissenting views, which
fall under six main rubrics, need to be taken very seriously.
Catastrophe: A "great catastrophe" will follow if an Arab country
is hit, predicts Jordan's King Abdullah II. Syrian Foreign Minister
Faruq al-Shara warns of "endless problems" if any Arab country is
struck.
Sounds ominous - but these two leaders forget to explain just why
ousting Saddam would be so terrible. Or why it would be worse
than leaving him in power. Khidhir Hamza, former head of Iraq's
nuclear program, estimates that his old boss will have "three to
five nuclear weapons by 2005." Given Saddam's well-established
viciousness and aggression, this would be the true catastrophe, not
his losing power.
Coalition busting: "Striking against any Arab country will be the
end of harmony within the international alliance against
terrorism," says Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab
League. Gernot Erler of Germany's Social Democrat party is more
specific: An attack on Iraq "would certainly mean the end of the
broad political alliance against terrorism."
To which the sensible reply is - So what? The attacks on Sept. 11
were against the United States, not Egypt or Germany. The U.S.
priority is to win the war against terrorism, not make new friends.
Further, the coalition is window dressing. Only one country is
actually needed to launch an attack on the Iraqi regime, says
former CIA Director James Woolsey. "Operating from Turkey and
from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf," he notes, should
generate more sorties than was possible against landlocked
Afghanistan.
And Turkey appears to be on board: Defense Minister Sabahattin
Cakmakoglu recently said that his government might reconsider
the "Iraqi question," indicating Turkey's possible willingness to
help America.
Destabilized Arab regimes: "Arab regimes will be considerably
weakened if they are incapable of preventing operations against
Iraq," finds French analyst Gilles Kepel. "This would be highly
destabilizing."
Really? More likely, ridding the world of Saddam will stabilize
every Arabic-speaking country, as they no longer worry about his
depredations and can loosen up. Better yet, the Iraqi National
Congress (waiting in the wings) gives signs of setting up a
democratic government and the Kurdish government in the north
of Iraq (in power) has already done so.
Collateral damage: An attack on Iraq would cause civilian
casualties, Britain's Foreign Ministry and Saudi Arabia's Prince
Turki bin Faisal both tell us. True, but collateral damage pales in
comparison to the damage Saddam inflicts on his own people,
whether gassing 5,000 of them on one day in 1988 or assaulting
the Shi'ites in Iraq's south for over a decade.
As in Afghanistan, an attack on Iraq would be a humanitarian
operation that the local population will celebrate.
Strengthens Saddam: Attacks on Iraq may only "bolster Saddam's
position in Iraq and make the people more supportive of him,"
warns Prince Turki. That's ridiculous.
Saddam will not be stronger after the United States gets through
with him for the simple reason that he won't be around at all. One
President Bush left Saddam Hussein in power after defeating him
in war. The second will not.
Saddam innocent of 9/11: Lord Robertson, NATO's secretary
general, last month told US Senators there is "not a scintilla," of
evidence linking Iraq with the 9/11 attacks. Columnist Robert
Novak concurs that there is "no Iraqi connection."
Not so. Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, met with an Iraqi
intelligence agent in Prague. Two of his co-conspirators met with
Iraqi intelligence officers in the United Arab Emirates. Bin Laden
aides met with officials in Baghdad. Further, Saddam may be
behind the recent military-grade anthrax attacks, suggested by the
presence of bentonite, a substance only Iraq uses for this purpose.
Thus does every argument against targeting Iraq collapse. Saddam
Hussein represents the single greatest danger to the United States,
not to speak of the rest of the world. Today, with Americans
mobilized, is exactly the right moment to dispatch him.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:52 MDT