Bookmark www.milnet.com     Contact milnet@milnet.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________

It's almost laughable. Recently liberal elements in both the U.S. and U.K. are trotting out all the reasons why attacking Iraq is a horrible idea for U.S. and Britain. Why?  "The U.N. must draft a resolution!"  So who made  the U.N. in charge of our countries sovereign right to protect itself?

No Country Can Afford for the U.N. to Protect their Security

How can anyone juxtapose this thought process with  23 U.N. resolutions against the Iraqi regime on WMD inspections alone, let alone the country's defiance and abrogation of  the agreements that brought about the end of the Gulf War?  There is only one country whose defense might be considered to be under the protection of the United Nations, and that is Iraq.  But then again, Iraq has broken the agreements providing for that protection, so even the U.N. has no "International Law" to support their protection.  It's all done with.  Now all that's left are hand wringing and the mincing of words.

Many cite International Law and propose that the U.N. must generate a resolution for the U.S. or any of the other Gulf War Coalition allies to attack Iraq.  That is sheer nonsense.  The founding charter of the U.N. deliberately spells out that it is a body for negotiation following tenets of International Law, NOT a body for creating it. . And while many welcome the discourse at the U.N., few allow that body to rule them, only advise.

And the media is stricken with this same malaise as well.  The pundits seem to forget that despite the U.N. being a place where nations can resolve differences, it is not a military body, it relies upon member nations to take military affairs in their own hands.  No nation can rely upon the U.N. for its security.  Past and recent track history demonstrates that more than adequately.

If that isn't enough, then take the case of Iraq.  This situation is a done deal.  Iraq has not met its commitments from the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991 and the U.N. has, as a body, continually "said so".  The definition of International Law is simple.  "Agreements between nations, written and discussed and voted upon for the better good of World Security" is the layman's translation of the United Nation's Security Council charter.  In the case of Iraq, the words were agreed to, all signed on, and then Iraq proceeded to year by year, break each and every commitment.

Be that as it may, the United States will not and cannot wait for the U.N. to decide whether world peace is at risk.  For one thing, the U.N. moves so slow that if it had known the fine points of the details of the impending 9/11 attacks in the Summer of 2001, it could not have managed to muster anything more than a vote to resolve warning Al Qaida to "keep hands off.", and that resolution would probably have come along in October of 2001.

In other words, you cannot wait for large, diplomatic bodies to make strategic or tactical decisions, especially in the arena of the use of military force or national security.  To do so is naive and deadly.  Our government would be criminally negligent to even propose that it is someone else's responsibility to protect the people of this nation.

Indeed, it is the current U.N. resolutions that provide the basis for International Law on the subject.  Those wishing to appease rather than take direct action counsel world opinion is against any attack on Iraq, and claim any attacks might not be legal. Aside from the remarkable resemblance to passive denial of the past, simply looking forward to a future where Iraq has provided the means for an attack on North America or Europe and hoping that diplomacy that has already failed to make a miraculous recovery is insane.

What's the rationale that leads to that conclusion?  Let's assume for a moment that the Tahhaddy ("Challenge") biological laboratory in Iraq is a real and known threat with plenty of satellite and on the ground intelligence to prove it to even the worst of the doubting Thomas' in the world.  Do you wait until the U.N. meets, deliberates and then issues a resolution calling on Iraq to dismantle the lab? Of course that is a fools errand.

Does anyone seriously believe -- is anyone deluded enough to imagine that Saddam would not immediately move the goodies somewhere else and smile claiming he complied?  Ebola or other nasty biologicals don't care whether they have a lab creating them along the Tigress River.  They would be just as happy anywhere in Iraq, including caves or bunkers deep underground.  And of course that is the problem.  You can't even exercise an aerial assault to convincingly eliminate that threat.   And the press continues to attempt to mine the details for public disclosure.

Don't get us wrong.  There is nothing wrong with public discourse of policy and giving diplomacy a chance to work.  Meantime, the U.S. and Britain have been keeping Saddam from killing dissidents by the bus load in the North and South No Fly zones, enforcing U.N. sanctioned rules of conduct for the errant leader.  Since 9/11, the press has been full of the threat the U.S. government sees in countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria and of course the conflict around the Palestinian Israeli conflict.  It's not like the American Government hasn't time and time again made its position clear.  Change the activity or change the government.  Remove the threat or else.

Does anyone believe the U.S. is not serious about this?  Both the Administration and Congress have made it quite clear that if Iraq does not change what it is doing, the results will be dire.  Yet has anything changed?  Of course not.  Words, at this point and as their use has demonstrated, are useless.

On December 30, 1998, Iraq broke for at least the second time, the terms of the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War.  They did this by refusing to allow in WMD inspectors from the U.N.  On that date, regardless of any hand wringing, mincing of teeth and puckering of bleeding heart lips, Iraq made itself a target for anyone in the Gulf War Coalition.  In no uncertain terms, a state of war exists, because the terms of the cease fire were not met.  When you have terms of a cease fire, breaking them can and will mean resumption of violence.  That's it.  Simple.  Clearly supportable under International Law and witnessed and based upon written agreements between the Gulf War Coalition and Iraq.

Added to the growing evidence of WMD production, misuse of Oil for Food funds for weapons purchase, development, and payments to Terrorist organizations, it is clear Iraq is not meeting its commitments to becoming a peaceful nation.

If Iraq had  taken these same steps a week after the cessation of the Gulf War, the Coalition would have gone right back into Baghdad and removed Saddam from power.  A lapse of 11 years, especially a period where every commitment has been broken at least twice, only means more impetus to action.  The waffling of politicians and pacifist lawyers in respect is a disgrace.

And least the bleeding hearts cry "but Saddam is trying!", let's be clear.  The Oil for Food program has netted Iraq many millions of dollars yet only a tenth has been spent on the Iraqi people.  The rest has gone into keeping Saddam's government living at 1000 times the level of the common people, sunk into illicit weapons trade, the hands of terrorist organizations and Iraq's WMD programs.  One tenth of the money earned in this U.N. and U.S. supported program could easily buy medicines to help the Iraqi people and repair damaged infrastructure such as sewage treatment, power plants, and the like.

But instead, noticeable purchases are weapons from China as well as upgrades to radar and running underground fiber optic links between command and control centers and air defense sites countrywide.  Instead of allowing inspectors in, Saddam is preparing his war machine to better hold off those who would force inspections or force a change in government.  He is protecting his regime instead of his people.  Instead of taking care of his harried people by conducting the government of Iraq so that sanctions could be lifted, he has defied them and refused to meet his promises.  Nice guy that Saddam.

Iraq presents a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and the World.  Waiting for Iraq to toss a chemical weapon at one of its neighbors is fine, if the Arab Nations want to take that chance, then regrettably, it is their funeral.

But the problem for the U.S. is that it is now to the point where Iraq's arming terrorists poses a real and current threat to the Security of America at home.  Our government MUST take steps to eliminate that threat, and if a power change within cannot eliminate that threat, then we will have to foot the bill to go in there and do it ourselves.  So far our President and U.S. Congress has made this policy clear.  MILNET would put forth the argument that if Congress did otherwise, they would be replaced.  In the American mindset, passive restraint has given way to a calculated determination posed for direct action.  Since it is clear we are threatened by outside forces, we will and must take action to defend ourselves, even if that means going to foreign lands that promote and support those who would do us harm.

"Why that is illegal!"  B.S.  No sane government is going to stand by and watch the diplomats wring their hands, waiting for a belligerent to bomb their capital and kill thousands.  "Why that is making war!"  Get a clue, least you forget, we are already at war. To wait for the next attack is insane.  To act is prudent and the duty of the government.  Those without the intestinal fortitude to take action need to step back and allow the protectors to do their jobs. Delaying will undoubtedly cost many lives.

September 11, 2002, the anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the U.S., will pass without the American people seeing the elimination of the threat that caused it.  Oh sure, the Taliban has ceased to exist as a viable entity, and Al Qaida does not have a publicly visible training ground.  But they both are still out there, along with thousands who are happy to support them.  Allowing Iraq to become the terrorist's weapons supplier (or any other nation for that matter -- pay attention Iran, North Korea, and Syria) is a irresponsible and deadly course to take.

© Copyright, 2002, Michael Crawford, MILNET

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
 

distributed worldwide by AFI Research afi@supanet.com