IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS III
IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS III
by
Ken Eliasberg
Up to, and including, now, I have been concerned exclusively with those criticisms of the war—all of which are spurious in my opinion - which are directed essentially at the war’s validity. That is, those criticisms which address the form of the war, rather than its substance. We’ll finish those up today and get into the substance in future columns. Although, to be quite frank, there is very little real substance to any of the left’s criticisms concerning any aspect of the war. Why is that? Simple. America is at war with Islamic fundamentalists—i.e. terrorists. The defeatocrats are at war with George Bush; he seems to bother them far more than Osama Bin Laden. Maybe that’s why we can’t trust these guys with national security.
Let’s conclude the validity aspects of the left’s criticism with 2 points (1) we never got the U.N.’s approval to go to war, and (2) there is no connection between 9/11 (al Qaeda) and Iraq.
1. U.N. Approval.- Actually, we have touched upon this when we alluded to the U.N.’s food-for-oil scandal. That is, we could not possibly have gotten U.N. approval because 3 of the members of the Security Council (3 of the original 5) were not about to grant approval (they were fatally compromised). However, in resolution 1441 we made it clear to Saddam that drastic measures would follow if he failed to comply. Moreover, the only reason we went back again to the U.N. was to accommodate Tony Blair, who was having some trouble getting his ducks in order regarding the war—and we needed Tony Blair. At that last encounter, it is argued that Colin Powell overstated the extent of Saddam’s gathering threat. It’s possible that he did, but his presentation comported with the available intelligence of all of the leading powers. And, in the final analysis, all we were really asking the U.N. to do was to put some muscle in to their last 16 resolutions (which as noted, ad nauseam, they were not about to do).
And this whole thing about U.N. approval is really a farce. When Bill Clinton took us into Kosovo—with a promise that we’d be out in a year—he did not bother to even go to Congress, let alone the U.N. He just sailed into Kosovo in a rather humorous effort to put some meat into the potatoes of his approach to foreign policy. So please spare me this crap about our not being adequately blessed by the United Nations, an organization that, as I have previously pointed out, is ineffective, feckless, corrupt, and fundamentally anti-American (except, of course, when they need our money or muscle to do any of the heavy lifting which needs to be done). By the way, remember Bill Clinton’s 1-year exit promise when we talk about an Iraq exit strategy in future columns.
2. Iraq’s Connection to 9/11.- Another barb directed at the war by the left is that Iraq had no connection with al Qaeda, and, therefore, an attack on Iraq was inappropriate. That is, our response to 9/11 should be directed at those, and only those, who perpetrated the offense. Well (1) terrorists perpetrated the act (this is, after all, a war on terror), and Saddam was quite clearly a terrorist. But, you say, he was not THE terrorist directly involved in the 9/11 attack. Wrong! There is abundant evidence coming out of Iraq linking al Qaeda agents to Iraq. I strongly recommend a book by Stephen F. Hayes—The Connection (Harper Collins, 2004), in which the author provides considerable evidence of such a connection. Moreover, Hayes has written a number of articles, mostly for the Weekly Standard (an excellent periodical, by the way), and has called for the release of more information which would clearly establish such a connection.
But, quite frankly, I don’t care if there was a connection or not. Why not? For 2 reasons: (1) Getting rid of Saddam was absolutely the right thing to do—he was (and is) a monster, who was a threat to his neighbors (2 of whom he invaded), his own countrymen (300,000 of whom he slaughtered, while torturing countless others), the entire region (funding the Palestinian suicide bombers), and, eventually, if not immediately, to the U.S., and (2)
it won’t make a damn bit of difference to the left whether or not a connection is established; if it is, they will merely move on to some other phony criticism. If both WMD and an al Qaeda connection are found tomorrow, it will in no way alter the left’s unrelenting attack on either the War in Iraq or George Bush. Why not? Because to these guys they are one and the same. It’s why they cannot be trusted with national security; their lust for power is so great that they would go to any length to secure it, even if it means compromising national security (as they are presently doing by groundlessly trying to bring down a president in a time of war).
Next week and thereafter, let’s deal with the substance of the left’s criticism - what little substance there is.