Editor,
Critics of President Bush and his war plans against Iraq say that North Korea is a bigger threat; that, while North Korea would not engage the United States directly in conflict, Kim Jung Il could give his newly revealed weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could use them against the United States. The president, therefore, should pay more attention to North Korea. This is a good argument, despite the fact that the president is doing all he can with North Korea -- short of military action, which would start a nuclear war. The president is rightly trying to engage North Korea's neighbors and the U.N. Security Council to try and handle North Korea and its flouting of international law. This is not going well, mainly because the two countries that can most affect North Korea's decisions, Russia and China, are demurring, even though the nuclear threat is in their own back yard.
But the critics sing quite a different tune about Hussein, even though the logic still applies. According to many leftists in Europe and the United States, Saddam Hussein -- evil man that he is, a man in violation of 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that he disarm, a man in violation of his own cease fire, a gasser of his own people, a tyrant, and a chief sponsor of Middle East terror -- is effectively "contained" and therefore we have no reason to force him to disarm. He poses no danger. Well, this is true, in the sense that Hussein, like Kim Jung Il, would not be so stupid as to directly attack the United States.
But, as the left has put it so well with North Korea, that is not the question. The question is whether Hussein could blackmail the United States and the world with nuclear weapons and would give them (and his biological and chemical weapons) to terrorists. Since Hussein has not disarmed, has defied his own agreement to disarm for 12 years, and openly loathes the United States and Israel, the answer to that question is, of course, "yes."
Here, the critics of Bush run into a wall: surely non-proliferation is a good thing, right? Surely North Korea was not "contained" through the many treaties and agreements it reached with the Asian community and Nobel-prize winning appeasers, right? North Korea threatens Armageddon on the United States, not South Korea, daily for breaking its own agreements with the United States and the United Nations, and has forced the Asian, if not international, community to take it seriously and accede to its demands. We have a textbook case of a madman blackmailing the world with the worst kind of weapons on earth, all because we believed it was wise to trust him, to give him "another chance" or "more time."
Sans the nuclear weapons (we think, anyway), there is nothing to suggest that Hussein, a Stalinist, is any different than Kim Jung Il, who is also a Stalinist. Neither dictator has been "contained." North Korea developed nuclear weapons right under the nose of the IAE and an unwilling Clinton Administration, and Hussein effectively dodged disarmament of his biological and chemical weapons for 11 years (most of that also under the watch of the Clinton Administration).
What kind of noise will the critics make when Hussein frankly reveals to the world that he has nuclear weapons? As with North Korea, the United States and the world will then be unable to disarm him or prevent him from arming terrorists. More rogue nations will be emboldened by our failure to defend civilization, and the threat of instant nuclear war will be more likely than at any time in world history. Terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and Hamas will be more lethal. More innocents will be killed, and freedom, including our civil rights, will wither. A new Dark Ages will be ushered in by our inaction to fight these supporters of terrorism, of fear.
For the critics of Bush, their arguments do not hold to the test of logic. As we've seen with North Korea, and if history is any guide, diplomacy achieves very little without the projection and use of force. Sometimes force is needed to keep the peace. Barring Hussein doing the world a favor and stepping down, this is one of those times.
The actions of North Korea and other rogues that support terrorism prove the stupidity of moral relativism --these regimes get their weapons to intimidate the innocent and entrench their power. They do not have the same goals that the civilized world has -- namely the defense of peace and freedom. Will it take nuclear blackmail and terrorism to convince the critics? Let's hope not.
-James Yerian
jmyerian@frognet.net
17 Archives
