To be respected, the United States must attack Iraq

If our nation wishes to be taken seriously in the Islamic world, then we must attack Iraq…. If our nation wishes to be taken seriously in the Islamic world, then we must attack Iraq.

Is Iraq manufacturing weapons of mass destruction? I don’t know and I don’t care. Is Iraq a threat to its neighbors? I don’t know and I don’t care. Would a military attack on Iraq be moral? I don’t know and I don’t care.

Does Iraq harbor terrorists? I don’t know and I don’t care. Is Saddam Hussein a ruthless dictator with no regard for Iraqi citizens? Well yes, but that alone doesn’t distinguish him from more than a dozen other rulers in developing nations.

If you feel Islamic nations will be nice to us if we are nice to them – ignore the fact that their governments despise our entire culture – if you think we should appease their requests, or if you feel we shouldn’t be there in the first place, then you are free to disagree with me. But, to maintain respect and influence in the Islamic world, we must attack Iraq.

The reason is simple. We said we would.

Eleven years ago we, along with our U.N. allies, fought a war with Iraq. We won that war and as a result we demanded certain concessions from Iraq. Sixteen of those concessions have been violated, including a failure to account for more than 600 missing U.N. personnel from the Gulf War, violation of no-fly zones over Iraq and, of course, prohibiting U.N. weapons inspectors to enter Iraqi facilities.

We backed up all of those demands with the threat of military intervention. Maybe that was a mistake, but it’s too late now. The United States went on the record in front of the world, saying, “Iraq better let U.N. weapon inspectors in, or else!”

At first Iraq complied. The inspectors found and disabled many chemical weapons, but before they could finish Iraq forced them to leave. The U.N. inspectors were barred from Iraqi facilities and our threat of military intervention began to look like a bluff.

That was on November 11, 1998 – almost four years ago. Since that day the world, particularly the Islamic world, has watched as we, the most powerful nation on the planet, have allowed Iraq to break a treaty without any serious repercussions.

That’s downright embarrassing – especially now with heightened tensions between the United States and Middle Eastern nations. We can’t be seen as a weak, indecisive nation, unwilling to follow through on our threats. I highly doubt if any nation would have been bold enough to shelter terrorists planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks if we had attacked Iraq in 1998.

The fact of the matter is that it’s of no consequence whether Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think they are. The real question is if we are willing to back up what we say. Are we to be viewed as a paper tiger unwilling to take any real action to back up what it says, or as a strong decisive nation that won’t tolerate subversion?

Like it or not, military strength is the cornerstone of all foreign policy; it has been since the beginning of civilization. If we are unwilling to use ours, it might as well not exist.

Yes, we just fought a war in Afghanistan, and we shouldn’t wait for another national tragedy before we take action again. Nor can we allow ourselves to be politically manipulated.

As a people, we sway violently, susceptible to every Iraqi ploy to manipulate our opinion. So now Iraq says, “Oh sure, we’ll let weapons inspectors in,” and suddenly we’re ready to give Saddam his 1,000th second chance. I challenge anyone to offer an example where Iraq actually followed through with a promise it made to the United Nations.

Iraq’s recent “cave in,” to Bush’s demands reiterated last week, is just a delay action. To get the inspection program up and running again will take at least two to four months. Once in, Saddam will continually attempt to thwart their mission, like he did before. We’ll threaten again, but by then it will be summer and the average of 107-degree temperatures in Iraq will make military action cumbersome and more costly.

If we allow Iraq to buy itself another chance, Saddam will get what he wants until next winter when conditions are right for an attack. That’s another year we give Saddam the upper hand. We can’t allow ourselves to remain docile. A nation frozen in its own indifference. Even if Saddam does let inspectors in – he won’t, but if he does – to correct one out of 16 wrongs isn’t good enough.

The question at hand isn’t one of morality, it’s one of responsible foreign policy. You might be thinking, “No, it’s not that simple. War has to be more complicated than that. There are moral factors, people are going to die for God’s sake!”

To which I’ll reply, “Yes! It is that simple.” We said that if Iraq didn’t make concessions we would use military force. Iraq hasn’t made concessions – don’t try to complicate things.

Will Minton anticipates your feedback at wminton@pittnews.com.