|
 r.
Orenstein, a Holocaust survivor, is author of I
Shall Live
The choice
facing President Bush, at this juncture of the war on terror, may
well prove to be of a magnitude encountered only three times previously
in American history.
George Washington,
when asked to lead the Continental forces to fight the British,
had a choice between continuing his life of relative ease, or assuming
command of a ragtag band of untrained, undisciplined soldiers who
were pitted against the well-equipped troops of what was then the
world's most powerful army.
Abraham Lincoln,
when faced with the question of how to deal with the South, could
equally well have gone for compromise, rather than acting to end
the scourge of slavery — even though he knew it was a policy
that was bound to tear the nation apart.
Franklin D.
Roosevelt saw Hitler break promise after promise and swallow nation
after nation — and succeed, ultimately, in occupying and terrorizing
most of Europe. England alone continued its lonely and desperate
fight for survival against all odds. FDR knew that if England fell,
Hitler would be in a position to threaten the very life of the U.S.
George W. Bush
will soon have to make a decision of comparably critical importance.
The war in Afghanistan is largely over. What remains is to help
the long-suffering Afghan people to rebuild their nation. It now
remains for our president to decide how to continue the fight against
what, in his State of the Union address, he rightly called the "ticking
bomb" of terror.
Bush can pursue
the easier path — tackling terrorist bases in Somalia and the
Philippines that do not really represent a major threat to the U.S.
This may give him continued favorable press coverage, but it will
not get to the root of the problem. Or he can take the tougher route,
and — with or without the help of our Allies — oust the
regime which, more than any other, threatens American security:
that of Saddam Hussein. Once that is done, Syria, Iran, and other
states harboring terrorists will be much more responsive to our
demand that they shut down their terrorist networks.
Iraq is not
Nazi Germany, and Saddam Hussein does not have the power Hitler
had in 1941. But Saddam represents a very grave threat nonetheless.
He already has large quantities of biological and chemical weapons
and is in the process of acquiring nuclear arms. We know, too, that
he is fully capable of using them. Saddam is a dangerous adventurer
prepared to act even where logic dictates it would be a mistake
— as evidenced by his attack on much larger Iran, and his occupation
of Kuwait in spite of U.S. warnings that it would mean war. He is
quite capable of killing tens of thousands of people — including
his own countrymen — to suit his own purposes.
Can America
afford to take the risk that Saddam Hussein, armed with powerful
and deadly weapons, will one day attack us — either directly
or indirectly? Removing Saddam Hussein will not only free the world
from the menace of a maniacal despot but also liberate the Iraqi
people from tyranny — as we did in Afghanistan.
History shows
that Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt all made the tough —
but correct — decisions. Let's hope that George W. Bush will
not be swayed from acting decisively to ensure the security of our
nation.
|
