The Iraq Quagmire

December 8, 2002

by Christopher G. Adamo

How unfortunate for the burgeoning Japanese empire of the early twentieth century, that its aspiring despots couldn’t benefit from the weakening effects among Americans of “political correctness” and subservience to the United Nations. Had such been the case, Hirohito’s empire may well have prevailed. On the day Pearl Harbor was attacked, America knew the identity of its adversary, and America knew what needed to be done in order to neutralize that adversary. In his unforgettable “Day of Infamy” speech, President Franklin Roosevelt unambiguously Congress to declare war on Japan.

Admittedly, the geopolitical domain of the enemy is not so well defined in the war that was declared against the United States in September of 2001. But war was declared nonetheless. From the monsters who highjacked the planes, to the mobs who cheered in the streets of Ramallah and elsewhere in the middle east, to the Islamic religious leaders - even in this country - who offered vague and tepid denunciations of the actions (when any denunciations were offered at all), the face of the enemy emerged with sufficient clarity for America to identify and confront it. For some reason though, America has chosen not to do so.

Attempting to minimize the breadth and scope of the threat facing this nation, President Bush continues to describe Islam as a “religion of peace.” His Secretary of State bought into Arab contentions that tie the legitimacy of the “War on Terror” with American success in the Palestinian situation, and other prominent figures have cited this country’s prosperity as the root cause of terrorism. Somehow, everyone is to be blamed except militant Muslims. Even the military action in Afghanistan was validated by food drops to refugees and the liberation of the Afghani people (Afghani women in particular) from their Taliban oppressors, almost to the exclusion the original goal that was the elimination of terrorists and their training facilities.

Now, at the insistence of the United Nations, the horror of 9-11, and the likelihood of Iraqi complicity in that horrendous event, is being completely trivialized. Rather than engaging in retribution sufficient to convince any and all enemies of the United States that acting out their hostilities is simply not worth the price they must pay, Iraq is being subjected to a handful of bumbling “inspectors” of dubious credentials, and even more dubious loyalties. Their leader, Hans Blix of Sweden, has gone so far as to suggest moral equivalencies between the actions of this nation and Iraq.

Can Saddam Hussein bear such ignominy? In fact, he most certainly can, the consequence for refusing to do so ostensibly being that the UN would be forced to bestow approval on US military action. And that is just the “green light” which President Bush seeks.

However, such a scenario is highly improbable if the powers that prevail within the UN Security Council and their handpicked cadre of inspectors have things their way. Instead, it seems that they will be entirely happy to give Iraq a “clean bill of health” after what can only be a cursory and superficial examination of possible weapon producing facilities. In the event that the inspectors happen across a stray chemical/biological installation or particle accelerator (used only for “research” purposes of course), they may insist on the system being rendered temporarily inoperable, accompanied by official Iraqi promises that the equipment never be reconfigured for weapons production. No doubt the Iraqi government can be expected to keep its word every bit as well as the North Koreans.

For President Bush, and indeed for all of America, such a sequence of events would be a disaster, neither standing as just recompense for the dastardly deeds of 9-11, nor doing anything to prevent the recurrence of terrorist attacks. Yet the UN apparently presumes that it alone holds the power to determine the appropriate outcome of this present situation.

Just when did America, or any sovereign nation, lose the authority to declare war without receiving “permission” from the UN? The United States, by alternatively asserting its own authority to do so, and then following with pleas for UN endorsement, appears to seek that approval as if it is the critical component of success. But the UN deserves no such legitimacy. Upon concluding the charade of “weapons inspections”, it will be time for President Bush to stand by his contention that the nations of the world are either with America or against it.

_________________________________________

Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer who lives in southeastern Wyoming with his wife and sons. He has been involved in grassroots political activity for many years. Chris was the editor of the Wyoming Christian from 1994 to 1996, and his columns can also been seen at CheyenneNetwork.com.

Send the author an E mail at Adamo@ConservativeTruth.org.

For more of Christopher's articles, visit his archives.