|
 obert
Novak, much admired in this quarter, reported on his Crossfire
program that conservatives were deeply divided on the matter of
whether the United States should strike out against Saddam Hussein.
On this matter he is adamant, insisting that there is no justification
for doing this unless we have in hand concrete evidence that Saddam
Hussein was involved in the September 11 massacre.
There are two
points to make here; 1) Is there in fact such evidence against Iraq?
2) Do we need to wait for such evidence, if it is there, before
proceeding against Iraq?
Laurie Mylroie's
book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against
America, reports persuasively that Saddam Hussein was the sponsor
of the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center. That was a huge effort,
unsuccessful by the standards of September ll, but although the
building did not collapse, six people were killed, and a 100-foot-wide
crater opened up. One Ramzi Yousef was given two life sentences
and is serving them out in Colorado. He said that his ambition had
been to kill 250,000 people. Mylroie documents a huge effort to
disguise his identity, alleging that he is in fact an Iraqi intelligence
agent and that the work he did could not have been done by a deracinated
band of terrorists. To be sure, we have been taught that far more
sophisticated acts than the 1993 attempt can be consummated without
apparent state backing. We have satisfied ourselves and our allies
that Osama bin Laden is the dominant figure of September 11. We
have not established that the Taliban government sponsored the terrorist
act, but we are proceeding on the assumption that bin Laden could
not have masterminded the slaughter without the backing of the government.
We should remind
ourselves that we are dealing with tyrannical states. It's true
that the Taliban government can't make enough corn flakes for the
Afghan people, but it does manage to control 90 percent of Afghanistan.
It is beyond reasonable doubt that bin Laden proceeded with the
tacit backing of the government, never mind its disavowal of September
11.
Saddam Hussein
has also disavowed the act. So? Osama bin Laden also disavowed
it, while congratulating the enterprise of its perpetrators. The
density of the intrigue discourages conclusions that claim to be
self-evident. We proceed against Afghanistan without such evidence
as could survive, say, a trial with Johnnie Cochran upholding the
innocence of bin Laden.
The position
of some of the conservatives Mr. Novak warns against is that we
have a de facto case against Saddam Hussein. The evidence at hand
is not what we would need in a court of law. We would not, in 1942,
have been able to prove that Adolf Hitler was exterminating the
Jews. We proceed on reasonable grounds. Saddam Hussein shelters
terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a central figure in the 1993 bombing,
an indicted fugitive, is sheltered in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has essayed,
at the expense of the Kurds, genocide. He catalyzed a great military
enterprise by invading Kuwait. He has slaughtered dissidents and
cultivates the final weapons of war.
We do not propose
military exercises aimed at correcting abuses in derelict governments.
The primary distinction, in the matter of Iraq, is that it is aligned
with a force — a brotherhood — that under the banner of
Islam, makes war against us. It can choose its targets with total
concern for its own interests. But it ought not to be permitted
to do so under the shelter of anonymity.
The White House's
Ari Fleischer contradicted a report in Amman last week to the effect
that President Bush had promised Jordan's King Abdullah that the
United States would not move against Iraq. That doesn't mean that
Mr. Bush intends to move against Iraq. At this moment, eyes train
exclusively on Afghanistan. But it was Mr. Bush who said on September
12 that our enemy is not only the activators of the slaughter, but
also those who give them shelter. It's true that many voices of
Islam protest any contemplated action against Iraq and that diplomatic
caution correctly informs us on what course to take.
But we do not
need conclusive evidence of Iraq's participation in anti-U.S. terrorism
to issue an ultimatum: Open your borders to an uninhibited inspection
of Iraqi recesses of terrorist and aggressive activity. And deliver
Abdul Rahman Yasin, handcuffed, to our embassy in Kuwait.
|
