Time isn’t the answer; Iraq must be disarmed

On some issues, friends will simply never agree.

That seems to be the case in the confrontation with Iraq, with old allies in a bitter dispute about how best to deal with disarming Saddam Hussein. It’s also the case here at home, where friends, colleagues and families are of differing views on whether war is justified.

On the diplomatic stage, France and Germany are chief among traditional U.S. allies who oppose the use of military force, seemingly under any circumstances. They, along with Russia — a budding American friend — argue that more time should be given to United Nations weapons inspectors to see whether Iraq is complying with countless U.N. demands to disarm.

Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix also has asked for more time, but has repeatedly said that Iraq has been less than forthcoming with inspectors. Having failed to comply with more than a dozen U.N. resolutions, and having kicked inspectors out of the country in 1998, anything less than complete cooperation by Iraq must be met with the most serious consequences.

More time won’t make the difference in this impasse. Saddam, who put himself in this position by invading Kuwait 12 years ago, then agreeing to disarm in a surrender to allied forces, has demonstrated time and again his disdain for the United Nations, and the United States in particular. And France has made it plain that it intends to use its Security Council veto to stop any official sanction of war. The Security Council appears incapable of giving its resolutions meaning by backing them up.

Meanwhile, some 300,000 U.S. and British troops bide their time in the hot desert and at sea, waiting for the word to go. As apparently futile diplomacy drags on, desert temperatures rise. If it takes much longer, the danger to our troops will intensify as the heat makes it nearly impossible to fight with the gear needed to protect against chemical or biological weapons.

In the streets at home, large and vocal groups who oppose U.S. military action in Iraq, and others who favor it, have made their opinions known. Millions more, however, are deeply ambivalent about war in Iraq. Many Americans agree that Saddam is a monster who should be removed from power, but aren’t certain whether eliminating a tyrant who could facilitate terrorist attacks inside our borders will help prevent such attacks or inspire more of them. Some wonder whether risking lives to remove a dictator who already appears to be contained is necessary. Some worry that going to war without the full support of the United Nations will make America an international outcast.

These and other concerns are entirely valid. War, after all, carries risks — but so does inaction. Left in power, Saddam would surely not sit still. Just last week, he sent $25,000 to the family of a Palestinian suicide bomber. That he could provide terrorists with the means to attack America or its friends with weapons of mass destruction is too real a possibility to ignore.

President Bush’s forceful stand throughout this ordeal implies that he knows Saddam still possesses illegal weapons, and that only an invasion will allow them to be uncovered. He had better be right, or U.S. credibility will suffer an incalculable blow. He and his military aides also have implied that any invasion will be so overwhelming that casualties will be minimal. He’d better be right about that, too, or his support at home could vanish overnight.

Once Saddam is gone, the peace-making begins. Bush’s welcome announcement Friday that he soon will issue a new "road map" to solving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis was intended to show the world that this country’s primary interest in the Middle East is peace and stability. It’s an important message that came at the right time, and must be followed by a sincere and tireless effort to achieve the goal of a secure Israel and an independent Palestine, coexisting in peace.

That, more than anything else the United States could do, promises to quell hatred of America in the Arab world.