War vs. Saddam a Big Mistake

Like other victors before him, President Bush is being tempted with greater glories. He should follow his triumph in Afghanistan, the trumpet sounds, with a more magnificent destruction of Saddam Hussein.
But to attack Iraq now would forfeit all that the American President has won since Sept. 11: the backing of the United Nations; the resurrection of the alliance of America, Britain and Russia that won World War II; the support of the Arab League, and a 90% job-approval rating from the American people.
It would be nothing like the recent successes in Afghanistan.
To topple Saddam would take a half-million to a million U.S. troops. It would require an occupying force capable of policing a civilian population that would be embittered by a brutal bombing campaign. It would cast us in the role of the aggressor.
I have given up trying to understand the thinking of those who agitate for such a wrong and potentially tragic course against Saddam. They try — and fail — to blame him for Sept. 11 or the anthrax letters. They want nothing less than an all-out war.
I can't tell where President Bush stands, whether with Secretary of State Powell or with the neoconservatives inside and out of his administration who have long led their global wish list with Saddam's destruction.
Bush called this week for Saddam to let UN inspectors search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. While Saddam defied him, this is the sort of posturing that's been going on for years.
Bush must certainly know that an all-out invasion would put the United States on one side, Iraq and the rest of the world on the other. I doubt that even British Prime Minister Tony Blair would back an attack on Baghdad.
What a calamitous end this would bring to the current campaign. Instead of leading the world in a war of justice, we would be undoubtedly scorned as an aggressor.
The hunt for Osama Bin Laden was an easy sell. A war with Iraq would not enjoy the same authenticity. We would be attacking a nation based on what it might do: use biological or nuclear weapons against another country.
That will not sell the majority.
I liked the way former President Harry Truman talked about us. He called us "this country," meaning all the American people in those splendid moments when we feel and act as one.
Right now is one of those moments. The Taliban are finished. The country stands united.
We can see a feasible future line of attack. To wipe out Bin Laden's network, America will now attack its other training grounds in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and the Philippines.
This isn't complicated. Bush will be doing what any red-blooded American leader would do: bringing justice to those who killed our people in cold blood. That's something Americans have been ready to do since Revolutionary days, when our flag showed a coiled snake and the words: Don't Tread on Me.
What we shouldn't be ready to do is attack a country before it attacks us.

	HOME \| NEWS \| Irak-Debatte	Druckversion
	29.11.2001 \| New York Daily News War vs. Saddam a Big Mistake Like other victors before him, President Bush is being tempted with greater glories. He should follow his triumph in Afghanistan, the trumpet sounds, with a more magnificent destruction of Saddam Hussein. But to attack Iraq now would forfeit all that the American President has won since Sept. 11: the backing of the United Nations; the resurrection of the alliance of America, Britain and Russia that won World War II; the support of the Arab League, and a 90% job-approval rating from the American people. It would be nothing like the recent successes in Afghanistan. To topple Saddam would take a half-million to a million U.S. troops. It would require an occupying force capable of policing a civilian population that would be embittered by a brutal bombing campaign. It would cast us in the role of the aggressor. I have given up trying to understand the thinking of those who agitate for such a wrong and potentially tragic course against Saddam. They try — and fail — to blame him for Sept. 11 or the anthrax letters. They want nothing less than an all-out war. I can't tell where President Bush stands, whether with Secretary of State Powell or with the neoconservatives inside and out of his administration who have long led their global wish list with Saddam's destruction. Bush called this week for Saddam to let UN inspectors search Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. While Saddam defied him, this is the sort of posturing that's been going on for years. Bush must certainly know that an all-out invasion would put the United States on one side, Iraq and the rest of the world on the other. I doubt that even British Prime Minister Tony Blair would back an attack on Baghdad. What a calamitous end this would bring to the current campaign. Instead of leading the world in a war of justice, we would be undoubtedly scorned as an aggressor. The hunt for Osama Bin Laden was an easy sell. A war with Iraq would not enjoy the same authenticity. We would be attacking a nation based on what it might do: use biological or nuclear weapons against another country. That will not sell the majority. I liked the way former President Harry Truman talked about us. He called us "this country," meaning all the American people in those splendid moments when we feel and act as one. Right now is one of those moments. The Taliban are finished. The country stands united. We can see a feasible future line of attack. To wipe out Bin Laden's network, America will now attack its other training grounds in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and the Philippines. This isn't complicated. Bush will be doing what any red-blooded American leader would do: bringing justice to those who killed our people in cold blood. That's something Americans have been ready to do since Revolutionary days, when our flag showed a coiled snake and the words: Don't Tread on Me. What we shouldn't be ready to do is attack a country before it attacks us. WADI e.V. \| tel.: (+49) 069-57002440 \| fax (+49) 069-57002444 http://www.wadinet.de \| e-mail: