The
Kurdistan Observer
www.kurdistanobserver.com
Evidence Against Iraq?
We do not need evidence to issue an ultimatum.
October 9, 2001 ( National Review)
By: William F Buckley Jr. |
 |
Robert Novak, much admired in this quarter, reported on his Crossfire program
that
conservatives were deeply divided on the matter of whether the United
States should strike
out against Saddam Hussein. On this matter he is adamant, insisting
that there is no
justification for doing this unless we have in hand concrete evidence
that Saddam Hussein
was involved in the September 11 massacre.
There are two points to make here; 1) Is there in fact such evidence
against Iraq? 2) Do we
need to wait for such evidence, if it is there, before proceeding against
Iraq?
Laurie Mylroie's book, Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished
War Against
America, reports persuasively that Saddam Hussein was the sponsor of
the 1993 attempt on
the World Trade Center. That was a huge effort, unsuccessful by the
standards of September
ll, but although the building did not collapse, six people were killed,
and a 100-foot-wide
crater opened up. One Ramzi Yousef was given two life sentences and
is serving them out in
Colorado. He said that his ambition had been to kill 250,000 people.
Mylroie documents a
huge effort to disguise his identity, alleging that he is in fact an
Iraqi intelligence agent and
that the work he did could not have been done by a deracinated band
of terrorists. To be
sure, we have been taught that far more sophisticated acts than the
1993 attempt can be
consummated without apparent state backing. We have satisfied ourselves
and our allies that
Osama bin Laden is the dominant figure of September 11. We have not
established that the
Taliban government sponsored the terrorist act, but we are proceeding
on the assumption
that bin Laden could not have masterminded the slaughter without the
backing of the
government.
We should remind ourselves that we are dealing with tyrannical states.
It's true that the
Taliban government can't make enough corn flakes for the Afghan people,
but it does
manage to control 90 percent of Afghanistan. It is beyond reasonable
doubt that bin Laden
proceeded with the tacit backing of the government, never mind its
disavowal of September
11.
Saddam Hussein has also disavowed the act. So? Osama bin Laden also
disavowed it, while
congratulating the enterprise of its perpetrators. The density of the
intrigue discourages
conclusions that claim to be self-evident. We proceed against Afghanistan
without such
evidence as could survive, say, a trial with Johnnie Cochran upholding
the innocence of bin
Laden.
The position of some of the conservatives Mr. Novak warns against is
that we have a de
facto case against Saddam Hussein. The evidence at hand is not what
we would need in a
court of law. We would not, in 1942, have been able to prove that Adolf
Hitler was
exterminating the Jews. We proceed on reasonable grounds. Saddam Hussein
shelters
terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, a central figure in the 1993 bombing,
an indicted fugitive,
is sheltered in Iraq. Saddam Hussein has essayed, at the expense of
the Kurds, genocide. He
catalyzed a great military enterprise by invading Kuwait. He has slaughtered
dissidents and
cultivates the final weapons of war.
We do not propose military exercises aimed at correcting abuses in derelict
governments.
The primary distinction, in the matter of Iraq, is that it is aligned
with a force — a
brotherhood — that under the banner of Islam, makes war against us.
It can choose its
targets with total concern for its own interests. But it ought not
to be permitted to do so under
the shelter of anonymity.
The White House's Ari Fleischer contradicted a report in Amman last
week to the effect that
President Bush had promised Jordan's King Abdullah that the United
States would not move
against Iraq. That doesn't mean that Mr. Bush intends to move against
Iraq. At this moment,
eyes train exclusively on Afghanistan. But it was Mr. Bush who said
on September 12 that
our enemy is not only the activators of the slaughter, but also those
who give them shelter.
It's true that many voices of Islam protest any contemplated action
against Iraq and that
diplomatic caution correctly informs us on what course to take.
But we do not need conclusive evidence of Iraq's participation in anti-U.S.
terrorism to issue
an ultimatum: Open your borders to an uninhibited inspection of Iraqi
recesses of terrorist
and aggressive activity. And deliver Abdul Rahman Yasin, handcuffed,
to our embassy in
Kuwait.
-----------------------------------
|