Put simply, Iraq has reached the necessary critical mass of evils that makes it imperative for us to take Saddam down. The formula to apply is: hostile Islamic regimes that support religious fanaticism and terrorism, and possess weapons of mass destruction, cannot be allowed to continue.Surely Saddam Hussein’s Iraq meets those criteria.Forget about Iraqi links to 9/11. They may well exist, but are not directly relevant. Saddam has terrorist training bases under his control, including the infamous base where a jetliner sits, used to practice hijacking. It doesn’t matter whether the 9/11 attackers actually trained there. Future killers may have or will.The West has turned a blind eye to state sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East for decades. Terrorists trained, funded, and controlled by hostile regimes like Iraq and Iran have killed dozens of Americans over the last 20 years, and we have let it pass. This lapse of moral courage led directly to the murder of another 2,800 Americans and others on 9/11. To continue to turn a blind eye to this evil would shame their memory and encourage future attacks.Saddam’s support of radical Islamism is also clear. He views himself as a historic leader of epic proportions, unifying the Arab states against the West. His invasion of Kuwait, had it been unopposed, would likely have been followed by seizure of Saudi oil fields, and more importantly seizure of the holiest sites of Islam. As the self-professed defender of the faith, Saddam would have been a threat to rival Hitler.Since 9/11, Western leaders have handled the issue of radical Islamism with kid gloves. Fearing inflaming the passions of the Arab street or offending potential Arab allies, our leaders have carefully tried to detach the War Against Terrorism from efforts to stem the flow of hateful, poisonous radical Islamism. But this political convenience disguises an ugly truth: radical Islamism makes for the worst potential foe the West has ever faced.In World War II, Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority may not have been the motivation for his conquests, just as Islamic doctrine is really not the motivation for men like Saddam Hussein. Their real motivations were and are conquest and empire. But an ideology that makes it easy to de-humanize your enemies and justify barbarous crimes against them is extremely useful to tyrants. But radical Islam is potentially worse than Nazism, since it inspires religious fanaticism. If Westerners are devils and infidels, it is easy to murder them by the thousands. You are doing God’s work.This is where possession of weapons of mass destruction comes in. For 50 years, the West and their counterparts in the Communist world held back from use of such weapons, knowing that even a mostly successful attack would result in devastating retaliation. In such an attack, the country responsible would be clearly known and there would be no doubt that a counter attack was justified.But a small number of unknown terrorists, driven by suicidal fanaticism, could launch an attack in the U.S. and leave few clues. Who would we attack in response? How do we deter such monsters?Currently Iraq is the only nation that has reached this critical mass of evil. (Hostile, sponsors terrorism, possesses weapons of mass destruction) Syria, Iran, and Libya are hostile and sponsor terrorism, but don’t possess weapons of mass destruction. North Korea may possess such weapons, and is hostile, but has few documented links to terrorism. These nations can and should be handled with diplomacy or coercion.But a successful attack on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein should greatly aid in convincing these other nations to reconsider their embrace of the evil of terrorism. If, against all logic, they continue to fund and direct covert terrorist attacks against us, then perhaps we move against them as well.Part of my embrace of an attack on Iraq is based on the well-justified faith I have in our armed forces. Plenty of armchair generals and pacifists in wolf’s clothing are making much of the dangers and difficulties of fighting Saddam. I think most of these worries are overstated. The threat of Saddam using his chemical or biological weapons in a last, desperate gambit is real. But I have no doubt whatsoever that our fighting men will take him down in the end.
So debate it if you like. But let’s be real about the threat and get serious about eliminating it.
This radical punk would rather sit around, hit the bong and make love than shoot missiles.
