 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frank
J. Gaffney Jr.
Particularly
gratifying were the portions of the president's remarks that established
the mandate under which we will act to liberate Iraq. In the end, it derives
not from the United Nations. Rather, it is a product of the necessary
exercise of America's sovereign right to self-defense, undertaken in the
face of the U.N.'s Franco/Russian-enforced irresolution. Mr. Bush put
the point succinctly: "This is not a question of authority, it The only problem with this momentous presidential address was its bottom line: Saddam Hussein has been given 48 more hours. While Mr. Bush would have him use that time to relinquish power and flee, Saddam is more likely to use it to finalize an ecological, economic, and societal gotterdammerung for his enslaved people. He may also seek to unleash deadly, preemptive attacks on U.S. forces, allies, and interests — or perhaps the American people here at home. Last night, Mr. Bush correctly established that the jig is up for Saddam. Time should be as well. — Frank J. Gaffney Jr. held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department. He is currently president of the Center for Security Policy and a contributing editor to NRO.
Nikolas
K. Gvosdev I was struck by the fact that the president's speechwriters made no reference to what would appear to be the most relevant precedent for the United States taking military action against another state without either the traditional declaration of war or the sanction of the United Nations — the 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia. (If for nothing else, the Kosovo precedent confounds those politicians who supported that action yet now claim that the United States cannot act against Iraq without the explicit approval of the U.N. Security Council.) But one lesson from that experience needs to be learned. Then, as now, other major powers disagreed with our assessment of the threat and the means we used to counter it. This time, however, we cannot afford any significant or long-term rupture in our relationships with France, Germany, Russia, and China because of Iraq. Continued cooperation in the war against international terrorism; ensuring the stability of Europe and West Africa; facilitating new energy partnerships and reaching a consensus on dealing with North Korea are all critical issues. The president's speech made it clear: Diplomacy in the Iraq matter has run its course. Secretary Powell now has new tasks to attend to. — Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of In the National Interest.
Michael
Ledeen I liked the direct warnings to the Iraqis, and the promise that crimes will be punished. That's what the whole thing is all about isn't it? My only complaint, which is my ongoing complaint, is that the context has become blurred with the passage of time. This is not a one-off event, it is another battle in a long war, and he would have done well to remind us of that. And finally, if I am right, we are going to come under attack — in Iraq — from Iranian-and Syrian-sponsored terrorist groups, and if we understand what is going on we will find ourselves in a regional conflict. Meanwhile, at the other end of the Axis of Evil, the rulers of the Hermit Kingdom fester and scheme. I'd have been grateful to hear some of that, too. But it's churlish to dwell on these minor points when the man's delivered a fine address with a brave message and we should all be grateful for his tenacity and his amazingly good instincts. — Michael Ledeen an NRO contributing editor, is author of The War Against the Terror Masters and Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
