Sept. 11, 2001, will only mark the second most notable security
failure in United States history if actions are not taken
immediately to end Saddam Hussein’s ability to make war.
Nobody disagrees with the contention that Hussein is dangerous, and
disarming him should be our top priority.
Yet, as of last week, there were valid points of contention to
war. But after Wednesday’s presentation by Colin Powell to
the United Nations, there should be none.
The first major outcry from allies was for more evidence. Powell
answered by presenting satellite photos of chemical weapons
bunkers, intercepted telephone conversations about nerve agents,
links to al-Qaeda and then weapons themselves.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, ordered Iraq to
disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. Still, there remain
1000 tons of chemical weapons unaccounted for in Iraq alongside the
12 unreported chemical warheads found by inspectors. This
resolution is the United Nations at its best, swinging its big
stick and roaring with thunderous sound and fury, but signifying
nothing.
There are also those who think a war with Iraq would detract
from our fight against terror. But how you distinguish between two
shades of evil is beyond me, especially when there is so much
evidence of the parties “talking.”
According to Powell, members of al-Qaeda met with Iraqis at
least eight times since the early 1990s. And according to a
detained senior al-Qaeda member, al-Qaeda has sent operatives to
Iraq looking to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Furthermore, Abu Mussab Zarqawi, a bin Laden associate, has
stayed in Iraq, setting up bases and moving supplies and capital
throughout the country with Iraqi knowledge. Bin Laden and Hussein,
innately linked by objective and hatred, are now clearly associated
in misconduct. We cannot wage a war on one half of a unified enemy
body.
For those who say an American attack would not be in
self-defense, can you be assured a nuclear bomb will not go off in
Los Angeles tomorrow morning? Our government cannot. Last
Wednesday, the nation was put on “elevated” alert to
terrorist attacks for only the second time since Sept. 11, 2001. We
are told not to be surprised by “imminent” and
“eventual” assaults in America, but people still fail
to realize the magnitude of the threats.
All those who criticized our intelligence agencies’
failure on Sept. 11, 2001, cannot hypocritically pass off their
reports now detailing Iraq’s unlisted armaments and
involvement with bin Laden. If on Sept. 10, 2001, we knew that a
foreign government with 1000 tons of chemical and questionable
nuclear capabilities was deceiving and ignoring strict decrees for
disarmament by the United Nations, and if we knew they were
cooperating with rogue terrorists brazen enough to attack the heart
of New York City with the self-justified aim of killing all
Americans, I would like to think we would fight back, or better
yet, strike first.
Attacking Iraq now is a response to Iraq’s role in Sept.
11, 2001, not a preemptive strike. Protecting and providing asylum
for terrorists makes Iraqis terrorists themselves. They are
fulfilling their war on America through al-Qaeda. According to
Powell, al-Qaeda’s own senior members have reported that
Hussein was more willing to assist terrorist cells after the
bombings of United States embassies in Africa in 1998 and was
impressed by the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. The only
difference between bin Laden and Hussein is we know where the
latter lives. War on Iraq is the next logical step in our ongoing
war on terrorism.