Making History
Presidential decision time.

By Henry Orenstein. Mr. Orenstein, a Holocaust survivor, is author of I Shall Live
March 15, 2002 9:00 a.m.

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.