If George Bush?s decision was to back off and allowed ?the process? to continue, would this mean that Saddam Hussein would suddenly start behaving? Would he become another Muammar al-Qaddafi and suddenly announce the cessation of all programs for the development of weapons of mass destruction? Sorry, but you really can?t use Qaddafi as a model for a possible change in Saddam?s behavior, since Qadaffi?s change was brought about by a show of American resolve in invading Iraq.
No .. the more likely scenario would be that Saddam would continue to be Saddam. He would be emboldened by yet another failure of the U.N. or its member nations to enforce U.N. resolutions. Western inaction would be seen as weakness, and weakness is to be taken advantage of.
So, what if a decision not to replace Saddam leads to a possible worst-case scenario; an emboldened and more determined Saddam ? a Saddam who has decided that our show of spinelessness was his signal to press his advantage and solidify his position?
These things we knew about Saddam Hussein. He had a program for the development of weapons of mass destruction. He enjoys killing. He had already used these weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and his own people. He had contacts with Osama bin Laden, and he had a seething hatred of the United States. Do the math.
Saddam, encouraged by continued shows of weakness and a lack of U.N. resolve, steps up his weapons programs. Feeling that America will never screw up the courage to take military action against him, he makes arrangements to place a suitcase full of anthrax or a gallon or two of sarin gas into the hands of bin Laden?s goons. A few weeks later thousands die on the New York subways as the deadly gas spreads through the system. Thousands more die when anthrax is introduced into the HVAC system of a Chicago skyscraper.
Then again ? maybe Saddam would wait. Maybe he would wait just long enough to gather enough radioactive materials to fabricate a dirty bomb. Where would be a good place to detonate such a devise? How about a rental truck in Boston during the Democratic National Convention?
Was Bush?s decision to remove Saddam Hussein the right one? Viewed in the context of the possible negative consequences of failing to remove Saddam Hussein, the rational person not consumed with an obsessive hatred of George Bush would have to say ?yes.? The only way to preclude the worst possible outcome was to remove Saddam Hussein. Any other decision would have been a gamble with much higher stakes.
Can we be sure of the worst possible outcome resulting from a decision to leave Saddam in place? Of course not. But the downside of replacing Saddam is certainly less onerous than the downside of leaving him to his devices. Of one thing we can be certain, however. If President? Bush?s decision had been to leave Saddam in place, and if that decision had resulted in Saddam?s weapons eventually being used on American soil, the hate-filled left would have held Bush responsible for his inaction. I would rather be held responsible for replacing a brutal dictator, the murderer of millions, than to be held responsible for allowing him to continue with his deadly plans.
Are there problems today in Iraq? Most certainly there are. But one of those problems is NOT a brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction, a blinding hatred of the United States and a desire to become the leader of the entire Arab world, through force if necessary. Besides, who?s to say how much better things would be going in Iraq right now if the partisan hatred of all things ?W? had not worked so diligently for the last year to provide comfort to the enablers of Islamic terrorism.