 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In Sunday's Washington Post, Senator Miller had an op-ed listing ten questions he said were being asked by his constituents about the rationale for a war on Iraq. The senator underlined his absolute support for such a war — he was so strong on that in fact it seemed a little over the top, and who can complain about that — but on behalf of his constituents he gently asked for some clarification on basic points. Fair enough. Herewith, his questions on Iraq and their answers.
(1) Even if Hussein has nukes, does he have the capability to reach New York or Los Angeles or Atlanta? Yes. Those weapons could reach any American city via terrorist who smuggled the device into the country, then drove it down Wall Street, Hollywood Boulevard or Peachtree Road. (2) The old Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles for decades, many of them capable of reaching our major cities, and yet we didn't get into a war with the Soviets. The president needs to explain why Iraq is different. The old USSR was run by men who did not see the abject and instantaneous murder of civilians as a reason to celebrate. The USSR was a member of at least marginal stability and civility in the world community, and their nukes were part of a balance of power between competing nations. Iraq, however, is led by someone with such a blind hatred of the West that the death of those who live there would be good news to him. We are as useless to him alive as we are dead. His lack of respect for innocent life is measured in the body count of the Kurds he gassed in the North. (3) Who will join with us in this war and what share will they be willing to bear? It looks like it's just Tony Blair's Britain, so far. The president, the vice president, and Secretary Rumsfeld have said they believe that once we get into Iraq and start winning, other nations will follow behind the path we have cleared. This has been the case historically. (4) What happens after we take out Hussein? How long will our soldiers be there? And, again, with whose help? Given the performance of our war machine in Gulf War I, a victory won't take too long, perhaps a few weeks. We have better weapons now than we did ten years ago, and Saddam is militarily weaker. Plus, he doesn't seem to have any allies ready to march in and fight shoulder to shoulder on his side. (In fact, many of his neighbors will silently cheer his ouster.) The establishment of a stable post-Saddam government will take months into years, and we will be assisted in the task by the U.N. (though if history is any guide, they will be shoveling advice and we'll be doing the work). Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute says that one form for a new Iraqi government is already acceptable to many Iraqi participants: non-sectarian federalism, which would also act as a natural preventative to further ethno-religious conflict. (5) There is concern about too much deployment. We've got our soldiers stationed all over the world. Someone needs to bring us up to date on where they all are, why they are there, and how long our commitment to keep them there is. Here's a quick rundown. The military war on terrorism is known as Operation Enduring Freedom and is made up of deployments in Central and Southern Asia — interestingly, this effort is not (now) in the Middle East, where our presence is four explicit operations, mostly to ensure compliance of Iraq's Gulf War surrender. In Eastern Europe, we run Operation Joint Forge/Task Force Eagle in Bosnia and the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR)/Task Force Falcon. In the Pacific, the seventh fleet remains on guard, while other Pacific-theater personnel are involved in a total of 24 missions and operations. In South America, Joint Task Force Bravo supports regional security. Finally, must of our Western Europe personnel are maintaining readiness. Are we spread too thin? Could be, but we can't ignore the threat from Iraq simply because we are too busy with other things. Perhaps, though, a reexamination of deployments would be wise. (6) How does our plan in Iraq fit in with the whole Middle East question? How will it affect Israel? How will it affect our war on terrorism? Does taking Saddam out help or hurt that entire messy situation? A stable Iraq will mean a more stable Middle East. Saddam now exports mischief to the region and to the world, and provides the critical support and resources that only a geographically fixed entity can to terrorists seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. As for Israel, a significant number of ordinary people in the Middle East want their nations to coexist with her — witness for instance the massive and daily immigration into Jerusalem by non-Israelis who have jobs there. Saddam is a beacon for that dangerous faction that wants Israel destroyed. His departure will frustrate them like turning on a halogen lamp in a room full of cockroaches. (7) [Among Sen. Miller's constituents], Tony [Blair] is all right. But Putin is not. Why are we putting so much trust in him? Is he still with us in the war on terrorism, or was that just so much talk at a photo op? Putin is in business to bring Russia into the 20th (sic) century. Russia and Iraq are traditional allies and have lately been working to build further economic ties, mostly upon Russia's multibillion dollar investments there. Earlier in the year some Russian leaders quietly indicated they would support our efforts to oust Saddam, but now Putin has formally declared opposition, and here's why: If Putin supports us and Saddam loses, Russian investments are largely safe — a very important consideration for a developing economy. But if Putin supports us and Saddam stays in power or ignites the region in a wider war, Russia's economy takes it on the chin, and Russia gains enemies it did not previously have. (8) [Sen. Miller's constituents] know very well who fights our wars — the kids from the middle-class and blue-collar homes of America. Kids like their grandchildren. They want to hear the president say that he knows and understands that. Presidents usually do say that, but not until war is imminent. (9) Forgive my bluntness, but these folks also want to hear the president and the vice president say that this war is not about oil. It would not be wise of the administration to repeat this particularly nasty charge only to refute it, but they ought to state exactly what part oil does play. That is, the flow of oil is important as the primary energy element of our economy, and that the profits of oil companies have nothing to do with it. What matters is well beyond the gas pump; that is, factories, farming, jobs, and therefore our way of life, which all rely on energy. Cripple our energy supply, and the effect ripples throughout the economy — and when we cough, the rest of the world can count on flu. But all that's true whether Saddam's in power or not. Oil talk is an unfortunate distraction from the real reason for this war: to stop a dictator hell-bent on acquiring weapons of mass destruction to use against us himself, or via his terrorist friends. (10) They also want to hear an explanation of why we didn't take care of this in the Persian Gulf War, and why it is on our doorstep again so soon. Because in 1990, the White House chose the wrong rationale for war to present to the American people, then fought the war around that idea — which was to reverse the results of Saddam's unprovoked aggression and no more. (This was also the most powerful argument to be made to gain international support.) According to at least one White House staffer at the time, though, the president himself suggested making the terror threat the centerpiece of the case. The notion was eventually discarded. In the end, the White House argued the war was a "just cause" against the seizure of Kuwait. Had the case been made back then to destroy Saddam's WMD, and the job carried out, the problem we face today probably would not have ended up "on our doorstep again so soon" — or at all. Not that Senator Miller doesn't know all this already. But the rubric isn't a bad idea to prod the White House toward saying exactly what a lot of people ask — and deserve — to know. — Michael Long is an NRO contributor and a director of the White House Writers Group. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
enator
Zell Miller (D., Ga.) has the right idea. Again. He is, after all, the
Republican's favorite Democrat, and the Man Most Likely To Switch Parties
if the Republicans take back the Senate.
