|
Welcome to Act II
By Lorraine Stone, Oceanside, NY
The most vital issue before the American people—not politicians with an ax to grind and the necessity to lockstep behind a party leader lest he or she be ostracized and prevented from accessing patronage or committee chairmanships, or those who instinctively fall into line like good little automatons, whether Republicans or Democrats—is whether to engage in a war with Iraq to end the intermission at the mislabeled "end" of Desert Storm. Against all lessons of history and plain common sense, Saddam Hussein was left in power. It was clear in 1991, having prematurely rung down the curtain on Act I while leaving the primary cancerous cause in power, that eventually an Act II to remove this tumor would be necessary. So, welcome to Act II.
I am a registered Democrat. I am a liberal with a long and proud family tradition of liberal thought and political activism. Unlike some of my conservative countrymen and women, I labor under no delusion that either of us possesses all the answers, nor do I believe all virtue resides in or is controlled by those on one side of the debate or the other. Everything is, and better be, open to discussion in our democratically-oriented republic, or it will ultimately (if not instantly) cease being democratically oriented and become a dictatorship. Nor do I believe any one side has the right to steal the nation’s flag from the other, nor from others who espouse differing philosophies from those which either the Democrats or Republicans hold dear. Nor do I believe it wise for conservatives—and it is almost uniformly conservatives—to demonize opponents as though they were sworn enemies bereft of "the truth faith."
If we do go to war, no bullet will discriminate between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. In war, we must stand united before the world and before the common enemy not only of the United States, but of Western civilization and, frankly, the entire world. Internecine divisiveness and sneering name-calling will wreak greater harm on America than anything Tokyo Rose could have hoped for in her heyday. It would also be wise to remember that it is not proof positive of lack of patriotism to criticize any president, including this one, and/or his or her administration. It is, in fact, not only a right but a duty to do so. We don't recognize "divine right of presidents" in America, as it seems is the case in Iraq, North Korea, Syria, and a good deal of the rest of the world.
I did not vote for George W. Bush. I would not vote for him if he runs for office again. I do not believe he holds office legitimately, as it was acquired not by the votes of millions of citizens comprising the American electorate, but by the one deciding vote of a five-member politically motivated Supreme Court.
That said, the resumption of hostilities to bring Desert Storm to its logical conclusion—excision of the malignancy that is Saddam Hussein, which should have occurred in 1991—is entirely appropriate. While it is obvious, even on a cursory reading of his history, that George W. Bush is no genius and that the only exploitable personal asset he possesses is his family name, nevertheless, in his zeal to rid the world of the Hussein regime, President Bush is absolutely right and I support him in this instance.
There are several cogent reasons for having come to this unavoidable conclusion. The purported "pre-emptive attack" is a misnomer. The current situation more closely resembles that of police being dispatched to arrest and bring to justice a parole violator who repeatedly snubbed his nose at duly constituted authority and truculently declares his right to continue doing so eternally.
At the "end" of the Gulf War, when the United Nations forces suspended hostilities, the beleaguered and oppressed Iraqi people—really, his slaves—who constituted Saddam Hussein's forces surrendered within days to anyone they could find who would accept their surrender, including an Italian television camera crew, among others. Such was, and perhaps still is, the devotion shown towards the person of Saddam Hussein and, doubtless, his henchmen who pass as diplomats and officials but who are really gangsters.
The agreed-upon basis of surrender and "ending" of hostilities was that Iraq would accept United Nations terms and abide by a number of stipulations, including those requiring inspections of sites within Iraq where scud missies and other weapons were located and produced, and that Iraq would completely disarm, as did Germany, Italy and Japan following World War II.
From the beginning, Iraq's Saddam Hussein and his fellow gangsters have thwarted, stymied and then ignored the terms of these treaties, just as, if he could do so with impunity, any common criminal parole violator would. He has also invited other gangland criminals—commonly known as terrorist organizations and their members—to come into his gang's enclave and train to commit crimes elsewhere in the world.
It is simple logic, let alone the legal obligation and moral responsibility of the United Nations, to bring a parole violator and subsequent criminal and harborer of other criminals to justice by dispatching police to arrest him, and to liberate the Iraqi people he holds hostage and from whom he steals billions to unjustly enrich and aggrandize himself.
As even a brief reading of the history leading to this juncture shows, the present situation derives from Saddam Hussein's (not Iraq's, but Saddam Hussein's) desire to conquer Kuwait and grab its oil riches, positioning himself to threaten Saudi Arabia and others and ultimately achieve control of the oil resources of the entire Middle East, putting himself (not Iraq, but himself) in position to hold the entire world blackmail hostage as he now holds the Iraqi people terrorized hostage. This was the precursor to the Gulf War.
The Gulf War ended prematurely and fault for that can be lain at the doorstep of George H.W. Bush. Bush had authority to continue on to Baghdad, which General Schwartzkopf was only 45 minutes away from, and destroy the regime that is now the center of the issue. Allowing the conflict of Desert Storm to stop in the middle was not a cessation of hostilities or the winning of a war. Thus, legally and legalistically speaking, the proposed (and hopefully avoidable) conflict is not "pre-emptive" but, rather, a fully predictable resumption and hopefully a completion of what should have been completed in 1991.
Saddam Hussein, who is the putative leader of Iraq, bears a close resemblance to Adolf Hitler and his regime. He is a vile and amoral dictator who came to power more or less using the mechanics of democracy to destroy what little there was of it in his nation. He is more cunning than intelligent and sure of what might be called his divine right to rule. He fancies himself the reincarnation of Saladin, as Hitler fancied himself the reincarnation of the Germanic hero, Hermann.
Given more time and wiggle-room, Saddam Hussein, who has, as did Adolf Hitler, violated the conditions of his parole by the UN at the "end" of the Gulf War, will likewise take advantage of delays to make himself more of a threat than presently, possessed of greater and more terrible weaponry that he will not hesitate to use. Delay is a diversionary phantom and only gives madmen more time to prepare to do more harm.
Dispatching police officers to bring in a parole violator is not flouting the rule of law; it is upholding it. In this I agree with and support President George W. Bush.
|
|
