Saddam Trouble

6/1/98

We don’t need another Gulf War, but a solution based on strength and principle.

Do you have Saddam trouble? I do about once or so a year. When I feel the symptoms, I think back on Ronald Reagan’s great statement about our national character: “Americans are slow to anger.” Today, it still takes a long time for a large democracy like the U.S. with all its freedom and diversity to be pushed into a fight. Our seven-year cat and mouse game with Saddam is putting Reagan’s notion to a thorough test.

For the first time since the cold war, our very civilization is threatened. What if you awoke one morning to find half of Georgia wiped out by a biological weapons attack? Or, what if you didn’t wake up one morning? All it takes is one Iraqi terrorist with a canister of anthrax and an attitude. Fortunately, only the attitude has reached U.S. soil.

Given their potency, biological weapons are cheaper and easier to manufacture and hide than nuclear weapons. Any third world country possesses the tools to create a biological weapon. Since the end of the Gulf War, UN weapons inspectors in Iraq have discovered a full biological weapons program, production facilities, bombs, munitions, and delivery systems. The hard part is the delivery. Weapons of mass destruction must be either launched or hand delivered. Airmail or Pony Express, no terrorist has sent us a package from Saddam yet.

I believe that the probability of a biological weapons attack on the U.S. is likely. I am perplexed as to why we have not prepared adequate defenses. It seems logical to think that the same terrorists who enjoy blowing up buses full of Israeli children (and themselves in some cases) would have no problem releasing a tiny virus on the soil of their most powerful enemy, “The Great Satan.” Unlike past attacks, we might be powerless to retaliate. We will not even know for certain who our enemy is unless he tells us.

So Saddam can destroy the world as we know it now. It wasn’t so bad when only the Soviets could destroy the world. They were a large government with an ideology. Despite the evils of communism, we felt that even a one party government might have trouble justifying an offensive nuclear strike. What scares folks about Saddam is that he doesn’t seem to have any goals outside the sport of killing, destroying, and plundering.

The Clinton Administration’s strategy has been to negotiate, placate, and vaccinate. His every move has been reactive. The Commander in Chief of our military has not taken a proactive leadership role as George Bush did in the 1990 Gulf crisis. Bush declared: “This shall not stand.” Bill Clinton has yet to organize a coalition, draw a line in the sand, or set a clear policy of dealing with Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Americans should demand that the president march to the frontlines of this issue.

Every U.S. president longs to be remembered in history for his great accomplishments. Since Bill Clinton has had a relatively weak foreign policy record (Bosnia excepted), he should see the current Saddam trouble as an opportunity to advance not only the causes of the American people, but those of his party. Can anyone imagine the political accolades that would be bestowed on the president who resolves the Iraqi problem?

Sure, in today’s complicated world the John Wayne approach does not always work. When the Duke killed a villain, by golly, he was dead, and that was the end of the movie. Cowboys have always had a shrewd aversion to diplomacy. Nowadays, the whole posse at the UN is consulted including intransigent China, Russia, and France.

Prediction: Saddam will act up again, U.S. officials will declare for the umpteenth time that “We will not rule out military action,” and that our fleet will be ordered to the trouble spot to “send a message.” Soon a “diplomatic solution” will be reached. The tough talk then stops as our fleet sails to friendly seas. Safe from harm, Saddam acts up again. The cycle repeats itself.

So why not simply leave Saddam alone and forget about him? The world becomes a more dangerous place each time we let Saddam off the hook. If we allow him to frolic with biological weapons, then other dictators will know that they can do the same with impunity. Be assured that Kadafy and Assad are watching carefully as they stir their own deadly brews. Given all of the post Cold War military cutbacks, can the U.S. take on 2, 3, or more Saddams with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons? Military officials have testified before congress that the U.S. is not adequately prepared to fight a conventional battle on more than one front.

Like a big budget action movie, we appear headed for the inevitable sequel to the Gulf War. The CNN footage may not be as glorious in The Return of Saddam. Besides weapons of mass destruction, what will the Iraqi army fight with next time? They will have deeper trenches, more clever SAM traps, smarter defenses to our smart bombs, possibly new allies, and after years of UN sanctions, stronger resolve.

Of course, our boys will no doubt have a few surprises of their own. They may test the new F-22 fighter, remote controlled attack aircraft, bombs that dig deep into underground bunkers, and other high tech weaponry that might have been saved for a rainy day.

Americans are “slow to anger” because they dislike war. No war should result from emotion. The phrase is just a Reaganesque way of saying that Americans exhaust every possible option to avoid violence. We don’t need another Gulf War, but a solution based on strength and principle. The real danger of Saddam trouble is in doing nothing.