Versus Nurture
Available February 2012

The Best Sniper Ever
Available February 2012

WEEKLY COLUMN:
JDM vs the WORLD

SUBSCRIBE

FINE PRINT

“Earlier today,” an American president once said, “I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”

So began Bill Clinton in December 1998.

Fast-forward five years to 2003, another victory in the Persian Gulf under Uncle Sam’s belt, and the anti-war Left—the same people, presumably, who stood by Clinton’s every word in ‘98—are demanding George Bush gruff lied about Iraq’s weapons programs. They’re serious about it, too. That we’ve yet to find WMDs in post-war Iraq is, to their way of thinking, grounds for impeachment of the 43rd president.

Now, first of all, the weapons exist—so let’s get that straight. Not because the Bush team told us they exist, but because they quite simply exist. Clinton thought so in ‘98. The UN thought so last November when they passed 1441. Saddam Hussein’s taste for the forbidden fruits of mass destruction dates back much further than either example. This isn’t speculation, exaggeration, or, as Paul Krugman calls it in the New York Times, “dishonest salesmanship.” It’s documented fact.

You had to have either an SAG membership card or a couple of screws loose to deny Saddam had weapons programs and/or actual weapons prior to this war.

But recall, if you will, pre-war credos such as “rush to war” (the rush for which lasted 12 years, the longest recorded rush to anything, anywhere, ever—be it military conflict or a Macy’s One Day Sale), claims of so-called “unilateral” action (so called in spite of the many friends we brought with us to battle), and cries of “unprecedented” “preemptive” strikes (as if al-Qaeda’s preemptive strikes on September 11th weren’t precedent enough). In light of those rhetorical gems, it should come as no surprise that the Left’s latest catchphrase—“Where are the weapons?”—conveniently ignores the fact that they, too, believed the weapons existed.

Those who opposed the war beforehand are now doing their best to mar it in retrospect. It’s just what John Kerry and Hillary Clinton had in mind when they supported the war on record, then went on the record denouncing it through and through. Still, while the Left may be asking where the weapons are for all the wrong reasons, that’s not to say that they shouldn’t be asking.

And the “I don’t want to hear it” attitude coming from some on the Right nowadays is not the right response.

With major combat over and opinions long since formed, ideologues on both sides are still treating the whereabouts of Saddam’s weapon stash as a make-or-break case for war. This makes no sense. If you supported this conflict, then you supported the many reasons behind it—Saddam’s link to terror being one, his fetish for oppression being another. Likewise, if you were against the war, then no reason was reason enough for going in. Whether we find the weapons, whether we don’t—neither makes our WMD motive any more or less true.

If the Left still likes Hans Blix better than Tommy Franks, fine. No amount of inspections could’ve stripped the Iraqi regime of its systematic rape and torture. That’s just the way it is. But while the mass graves we’ve uncovered serve as validation for this war, it’s important to remember that, although we took out Saddam’s main weapon of mass destruction (himself), it would be dangerous to forget about the rest—and only in forgetting about them do we invalidate this particular cause for war.

The Left is pushing the wrong issue when they say Bush exaggerated or lied, and the Right, in turn, is ducking the wrong issue when they say it doesn’t matter if we find the weapons now. If the WMD issue was raised because we wanted to keep them from falling into the wrong hands, then all of us should be worried that perhaps they have. While I can only speak for myself, I’m fairly certain no one wants to find this out the hard way—waiting a thousand years to safely sift through the ashes of an American city, or walking through quarantined mailrooms and hospital halls riddled with anthrax and smallpox.

Saddam had more than a year between Bush’s Axis of Evil speech in early ‘02 and the start of the Second Gulf War in early ‘03. Whereas Clinton explained in ‘98 that “a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare,” the Bush administration was denied this element of surprise, having been led to a diplomatic dead-end by duplicitous allies who shall remain Franceless… ahem, nameless.

Saddam knew he wasn’t going to win if the diplomatic standoff resulted in war—even if he used his most lethal weapons, he’d only unleash a more resolute American military than the one he figured to face. But he wasn’t going to stop pursuing weapons just because we asked nicely, either. Outside pressure was breaking down his country, sure, but things like that don’t matter when you’re the type of guy who puts people in plastic shredders. So, rather than waste his head start preparing for actual battle, he plotted one final deceit: Whether he moved his weapons to Iran or Syria, passed them under the table to a terrorist friend, or hid them away safely for later use, Saddam did a damn good job of wiping his hands clean and getting right the hell out of our way when the tanks came rolling in.

Now, if it turns out the pre-war intelligence was wrong somehow, then, indeed, we need to know—not for petty partisan purposes but to protect ourselves. Barring that, however, we should operate under the assumption that the weapons are, in fact, real, and so is the threat till we find them.

Of course, there are those who would say this erroneously links Saddam to September 11th, but it’s not such a stretch in the big picture. Too much of the Middle East is held captive by an elite extremist culture, the leaders of which hide behind women and children while targeting the women and children of those they despise. This screws things up for their people, our people, and everyone else. There will never be an end to the War on Terror till we end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and there will never be an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict till Israelis can lay down their arms safe in the knowledge that regimes like Saddam’s are no longer paying for the explosive backpacks Hezbollah and Hamas hand out to little boys.

America’s Civil War wasn’t just about slavery, and World War II wasn’t just about genocide, but you’d be hard-pressed to find many African-Americans or Jews who either regret the outcomes or challenge the moral undertone. All the same, Saddam’s defiance of UN resolutions wasn’t the lone cause for war—it was the legal justification, rejected though it was by some. Those who still insist on objecting to the Second Gulf War on human rights grounds should bring their case not before the American people but to the streets of Baghdad; some Iraqis may be cheering coalition forces, others may be jeering, but the fact that the choice is theirs means freedom’s unpacked its bags and moved in.

We don’t need to find Saddam’s weapons to vindicate this regime change, but we do need to find out what happened to them. The criticisms of Bush are purely political here, just as they were of Clinton five years ago. Yet the fact remains: Saddam was a legitimate problem under both presidents, but not anymore and never again.

That’s what happens when we get serious about our problems.

Contact JDM
Like JDM on Facebook

Copyright ©2012 Jonathan David Morris • web design by paviaweb.com