Last Wednesday, Daschle did not take the Senate floor to discuss the disadvantages or merits of eliminating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but rather, to carry out his now regular Bush bashing. Bush, Daschle declared in righteous indignation, (responding to W's earlier, and accurate, assertion that Democrats are putting politics ahead of national security) "ought to apologize to every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate." Dick Gephardt hasn't been any better, telling the White House to take "security out of politics." Meanwhile, Saddam continues to stockpile chemical and biological weapons, oppress his citizenry and issue dire threats against Israel.
I'm a tolerant guy, but this is a bit much. The delicate situation in the Middle East is one that requires our prompt attention, not our endless partisan bickering. Sooner or later, if we continue to be paralyzed by infighting, Saddam will smuggle deadly weapons into the hands of terrorists, and Tel Aviv or New York will suffer, and suffer badly. Our politicians need to agree on a stable, coherent and multilateral policy towards Iraq and they need to do it soon. The question is, what should that policy be?
The issue isn't whether or not something needs to be done about Saddam-that's already been decided affirmatively. Iraq poses too much of a threat to international security and to its own people to be allowed to continue on its present course. Rather, the problem before America's decision makers is how to deal with Saddam Hussein in a manner that will keep a maximum number of Americans, Israelis and innocent Iraqis safe. And it is this issue that should inspire productive debate amongst our lawmakers.
First and foremost, Iraq needs to be disarmed. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recently released report on Iraq states that Saddam currently possesses substantial stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and is only one-to-five years away from developing a nuclear weapon. Given Saddam's historical aggressive inclinations and his stated dislike of America and of Israel, this poses a significant threat to international peace and security.
Iraq need not even actively use these weapons-their mere existence elevates Saddam to a position of power in the international community. An Islamic dictatorship armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would be and is a major destabilizing force in the Middle East and in the world. Yet the question remains, how to strip Saddam of his arsenal?
Iraq has agreed to readmit UN weapons inspectors, which is a step in the right direction; but it remains to be seen whether or not Saddam will honor his pledge. In the very possible scenario that Iraq recants and does not allow UN weapons inspectors to return, we must be prepared to retaliate with military force.
Yet the introduction of force in Iraq creates new policy problems. Opponents of military intervention argue that an invasion could spark an Iraqi attack on Israel or an Israeli response and could trigger another all-out Arab-Israeli war. The result would be the derailment of America's war on terrorism. While this is a valid concern, its excessive focus is on short-term consequences. In the long run, Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction would eventually force some sort of confrontation with Israel and the West-possibly with nuclear weapons. What is there to stop Saddam (apart from Israel's unconditional pledge to nuke every Arab capital, from "donating" a nuclear weapon to Hamas, for use on Tel Aviv? It is in the best interest of the world and of Israel to deal with Iraq now, before Saddam elevates to a position of real power.
What would be really nice, if I can be forgiven for saying so, would be to take the opportunity of an Arab-Israeli war to depose other Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East. A successful joint American-Israeli effort, undertaken now, before the standoff becomes nuclear, against Syria, Iraq, Iran and Lebanon could not only restore short and long term stability to the region, but could free the oppressed populations of those nations. If we took the lead in encouraging democracy in those countries, other oppressive dictatorships, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, might follow.
This is an important point-the scope of the war on terror can be broadened from American national security to worldwide human rights. Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia regularly murder political dissenters-Saddam's personal preference has been to unleash poison gas on demonstrators. Now, we have the opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: derail Iraq's weapons programs, thus protecting our national security, and free the subjugated Iraqi populace, thus proving our commitment to spreading democracy throughout the world.
So at the beginning of the 21st century, our nation is at a crossroads. We can do as we have done in the past, forsaking democracies and embracing dictatorships, or we can shed our checkered past and take the lead in the establishment of a new world order-one that is actively dedicated to freedom and vigorously opposed to oppression. With Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt in charge, though, I won't hold my breath.