United States must oust
Hussein
Thomas Asma
Opinion Columnist
As the United States prepares its plan
to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, leftists abound are expressing the
need for a nationwide debate over the merits of such an operation. The
lack of debate notwithstanding, Hussein's ouster is American national policy,
crafted by a determined Bush administration.
These leftists have proposed a different
strategy towards Baghdad: containment, much like the Cold War policy toward
Communism and the Soviet Union. If
we could contain a behemoth such as the
USSR, we should consider this policy for Iraq.
An American General, reflecting upon our
success in the Gulf War, said that Hussein was the only "jerk stupid enough"
to
confront the military bilaterally. Accepting
obvious American military superiority on land, sea, air and space, Hussein
has decided to build upon lessons
learned and his cache of existing weapons,
including weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles and terror. The
containment logic is flawed, because it
does not address this issue.
The policy of containment also assumes
that Hussein will not use these formidable weapons, which is an assumption
history has not proved to be accurate.
Hussein used mustard gas in his war with
Iran and on the Kurds in the north of Iraq. He also fired Scud missiles
into Israel during the Gulf War, despite the
fact that Israel was not an attacking
country.
Hussein has also shown himself capable
of desperate rearguard action, despite certain defeat. The February 25,
1991 Scud missile attack on American
barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia which
claimed the single largest number of American lives, killing 28, was described
by a former Iraqi military official as
"revenge." This of course, happened after
it was clear that Iraq would lose to a much more powerful foe and was done
to mindlessly take lives.
The "Arab street"
The situation in Israel, claim the Arabs,
makes any invasion of Iraq a destabilizing force for peace in the Middle
East. This is ironic, because the deposition of
Hussein and the establishment of democracy
in Iraq could be the best long-term stabilization plan for the region.
Hussein seeks to escalate the conflict
in Israel, as he asserts that the Arab world should "use oil as a weapon
in the battle against Israel and its allies."
Hussein is absolute in his opposition
to Israel's right to existence as well as most other Arab leaders. If a
moderate leader replaces him, like Afghanistan's
Karzai, the opposition for peace inside
the Arab League of Nations could get weaker, and peace in Israel might
be achievable.
These Arab leaders, dictators all, do not
want to see a fresh new democracy pop up next to them, for all of their
repressed, freedom-yearning people to see.
The same people raised the same "stability"
issue in response to the suggestion of the invasion of Afghanistan. The
United States invaded anyway, and the
"Arab street" was empty. Removing Hussein
will remove the most volatile personality in the region, and therefore,
add stability.
It will improve the life of Iraqis because
UN sanctions can be removed; oil can be sold and Iraq can trade with a
number of countries, which have expressed
interest.
Without Saddam Hussein, Iraq can become
a legitimate member of the international community.
