By Phil Kent, SLF President
As appeared in edited form in The Atlanta Journal & Constitution, September 18, 2002
Debate over the merits of going to war against Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein - and the authority to do so - appears to be moving from arid formalism to political reality. That is a good thing; Saddam must go.
Even as Saddam's government signals its intent to allow United Nations weapons inspectors into Iraq after a four-year blackout, Congress seems poised for a robust debate on war with Iraq or, more succinctly, a military strike to take out Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction.
Pressure to abandon Washington for the fall campaign will compete, despite recent, highly publicized about-faces by Democratic leaders. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), who in 1998 led the clarion call for military action against Iraq "by any means necessary," now claims that "there is no new compelling evidence to justify U.S. action." In the four intervening years, there have been no weapons inspectors in Iraq, so how could the situation not remain "compelling?"
Sadly, the only compelling reason for Daschle's new tune of caution is the fact that President George W. Bush is in office, and not Bill Clinton.
The dangerous reality of Saddam's Iraq is clear. Since 1991, his regime has defied 16 U.N. resolutions governing weapons inspections, hostilities in the 'no-fly' zones in southern and northern Iraq, and treatment of the Iraqi people. Iraqi opposition groups such as the Iraqi National Congress and elements of the Kurdish minority point to ongoing genocidal attacks by the regime, including use of chemical and biological weapons against civilians.
Hailed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Iraq's most recent unconditional promise to allow in inspectors is a familiar one. Saddam's hide-and-seek routine with U.N. inspectors, perfected from 1992-1998, will undoubtedly continue. White House officials rightly point out that U.S. conditions are the destruction of Iraq'a weapons of mass destruction and its ability to produce more, not merely the resumption of inspections. The current head of the U.N. inspection group, Hans Blix, admits that it would take at least a year merely to determine what types of weapons Saddam possesses.
In the meantime, the Butcher of Baghdad would continue in power with trained personnel and the know-how to continue to produce chemical, biological and, in the estimation of many in the intelligence and defense communities, nuclear weapons. In an age of global, vibrant terrorism in which no rules of engagement apply, the mere existence of such weapons provides the just cause for striking the head.
As long as Saddam remains in power, the inspections - and the dozen and a half toothless resolutions from the U.N. - will do nothing to change the direct regional threat and indirect global threat posed by his weapons and know-how.
President Bush and his administration have begun to lay out the case for Saddam's removal. War on Iraq must stand or fall on its own merits, and the president needs those issues vetted up or down by Congress and the American people. Action by the U.N., while internationally popular, is not a necessity. The Bush administration is cobbling together its international contingent, most recently acknowledging Saudi permission for use of its airfields by U.S. forces.
Daschle and Co. should read their own polls; the majority of the American people support unilateral action against Saddam, while heavily supporting U.S.-led international action. Political sidebar skirmishes, even during a heated campaign season, will result in unnecessary delays for the inevitable - congressional approval.
The modern-day analog to a declaration of war, the congressional authorization of force, should be given sooner rather than later, demonstrating the united resolve of the American people and affording military planners the full attention of the commander-in-chief as he determine the timetable for action.
