Courage Under Fire

Whether you support military action against Iraq or not, I believe the vehement dissent that’s been leveled against our President on this issue is more than just unpatriotic—-it may well border on treason.

No one is debating that war should be waged as a last resort, or that people of good conscience will disagree on the means of resolving the crisis in Iraq. Indeed, public debate on an issue as important as this should be expected from any free society. But when it comes to matters of trust and national security, it boggles the mind that anyone would side with the tyrannical regime in Baghdad over a United States President.

Even the likes of Nelson Mandela have hurled vile accusations of “blood for oil” and shrill commentary on President Bush’s supposed willingness to sacrifice the lives of American enlisted personnel and world peace for cheap oil. In response, former U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary and UN Arms-Control Director Kenneth Adelman, adroitly countered instead, “it’s Saddam who’s been on a clear path of oil for blood.” Via UN sanctions, Hussein has apparently been willing to forego as much as $200 billion in lost oil revenue, in order to thwart inspections and conceal his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Apparently it’s his WMD arsenal that Saddam values most. And if the U.S. wanted cheaper oil, we could have simply joined the French government in circumnavigating UN sanctions on procurement of Iraqi crude. Other than spurious arguments over energy or politics, is there a legitimate reason to stand down?

Is President Bush really engaging in a “rush to war,” as his detractors would have us believe? Hasn’t it been over eleven years since Saddam Hussein, who in order to retain his hold on power, agreed to disarm and demilitarize after the 1991 Gulf War? Even with Iraq having violated and obstructed enforcement of over fifteen UN resolutions since then, hasn’t the President first sought and received the approval of Congress and the UN Security Council to use “all means necessary” for enforcement? Given the glaring omissions in Iraq’s report to the UN, on the disposition of weapon programs already documented, does anyone really believe more time for inspections will uncover what Iraq is determined to conceal? Does anyone doubt that Saddam’s WMD program build-up serves any purpose other than to carryout his malevolent intent?

Will military action against Iraq really qualify as being preemptive? A better question would be, “should we wait until Iraq can engage in nuclear blackmail (like North Korea) before we take action?” While this administration has articulated a proactive strategy against terrorism, this action remains tied to the ’91 conflict. Since then, cessation of hostilities has been dependent upon Iraq’s disarmament. Pressure and sanctions have never been lifted, because Iraq has never complied with UN resolutions. Instead of disarming, Hussein’s regime continues to conceal missile programs, as well as huge quantities of biological and chemical nerve agents. Surely, Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to their neighbors and the free world. As President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address, “Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.”

So why is it that many of our former allies do not support this action? Simply put, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. For obvious reasons, associated with the toll that war exacts in death, destruction, and ongoing instability, the world community would understandably rather exhaust all peaceful means before resorting to force of arms. Considering the U.S. posture though, it should be equally obvious, that based on Hussein’s previous behavior and present course of action—that his WMD program presents an even greater catastrophic threat. Difficult choices aside, it’s the illicit energy pacts of unscrupulous allies and the cling to power from totalitarian regimes, which also prevents forthright action against Iraq. Frankly, if the UN is unwilling to authorize action against the Iraqi regime—that started 2 regional wars, that attempted genocide against its Kurdish population, and that stands in “material breach” of every UN resolution—then we owe Serbia an apology for interfering with their war in the Balkans.

I pray that President Bush will continue to show his courage under fire, during this latest defense of freedom over tyranny. When our President refuses to leave tough decisions to future administrations, he demonstrates the substance of true leadership. This principled man continues to stand in the gap, where others fear to tread. According to the latest polling data, over 80% of the American people side with our Commander-in-Chief. Although America’s support has slipped with some Europeans (within the Axis of Envy), and many Islamic countries, it probably has more to do with the immoral image we portray in the media, than with our foreign policy.

All things considered, the vitriolic stream of rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party’s leadership and the Hollywood elite is disingenuous, when their real intention is to discredit a President they claim was “selected, rather than elected.” Ideological sentiments aside, it’s hard to tell if they’re more interested in just maligning the character of an honorable leader, or deliberately aiding and abetting America’s enemies.

Roy Tanner