No one in their right mind ever favors war as a first option. Even in the current case of Iraq and its maniacal leader, Saddam Hussein, avenues of diplomacy and non-military sanctions must be exhausted before troops are put in harm’s way.
President Bush, in his address Thursday to the United Nations General Assembly, made a compelling case that forcing Hussein from power may soon be the only option.
With remarkable clarity, the president laid out the case against Hussein, who has defied no fewer than 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding everything from weapons inspections and a halt to his support of terrorism to the return of property seized 11 years ago during the Gulf War. No fewer than eight of those resolutions condemned Iraq for ignoring earlier resolutions. Essentially, the Security Council has shown Hussein there is but one penalty for violating its resolutions: more resolutions.
The U.N. coalition that won the Gulf War was a hopeful model for the post-Cold War world, providing a blueprint for containing international threats by rogue states. If that model is to have future credibility, the Security Council must answer Bush’s call and give teeth to its demands. Eleven years of diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions have proven fruitless.
Bush’s decision to seek international backing in his quest to oust Hussein was a necessary one. Going it alone, or with the sole support of Great Britain, risks laying to waste the gains made in building coalitions to fight the war against terrorism. The first President Bush understood how important it is for the United States, as the world’s only remaining superpower, to gain and keep the trust of its allies. He even resisted the temptation to march into Baghdad at the end of the Gulf War and oust Hussein because it would have violated the terms that brought that successful coalition together, undermining similar efforts in the future.
Already, some European nations are moving toward Bush’s view. France, one of five nations with veto power on the Security Council, appears to have been won over. Russia and China must also be persuaded. Removing the threat posed by Hussein is in their interest now as much as it was when they supported the coalition that won the Gulf War.
As the administration makes its case to the Security Council, it must also do so to Congress. Important and legitimate questions remain, chiefly concerning the scope and potential cost of military action against Iraq and the plan for what happens after Hussein is ousted. Bush needs the support of Congress and the American people before taking action.
Some in Congress have asked why ousting Hussein has become a top priority, worrying that attacking Iraq could distract us from the ongoing war against terrorism.
If anything, Saddam Hussein is a perfect target in the war on terror. He has possessed and used chemical and biological weapons, attacked his neighbors and supported terrorism. He has repeatedly defied legal mandates to submit to weapons inspections. In the absence of such inspections, the worst must be assumed. Bush put it well Thursday: "To assume this regime’s good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble."
It’s time for the U.N. Security Council to show its relevance and back the use of coalition force if Iraq does not disarm, submit to thorough inspections and comply with other previous demands. Any less, and the world will be left to wonder why the Security Council even exists.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.