Endgame
By
Carol Devine-Molin
web
posted March 17, 2003
Please pull the trigger, Mr. President! No more delays regarding Iraq - it's time to rumble! And my stance well reflects the majority of American opinion. The latest Fox News Poll indicates that 71 per cent of the American people support military action to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm Iraq. Only 20 per cent of Americans oppose this position. Moreover, most Americans are experiencing a heightened sense of frustration and want this war conducted forthwith, as they strongly agree with the Fox News Poll statement, "It's time to get it over with in Iraq." So much for all the noise and publicity that antiwar demonstrators are currently generating.
In the New York City region, which largely embraces this Leftist antiwar tripe, it's rather curious that the residents are seemingly unaware of the limited scope of their opinions. You can hear these stilted liberals vociferously utter, "Doesn't all of America oppose this war?", as if this were totally manifest to even an imbecile. Obviously, liberal "Clinton-Country" is not the be-all and end-all of America, thank heavens. But not to worry, Bill and Hillary have covered all of their bases by speaking out of both sides of their mouths, see-sawing in their statements on Iraq. At various times, they've gone on record with both favorable and critical remarks of Bush's military initiative in Iraq. Well, there's nothing like the flexibility that the lack of integrity affords -- the Clintons are cynically poised to spin this war in any manner that is advantageous for them. If this military action turns out exceedingly well, which hopefully it will, you can count on the Clintons to assert that they were always in President Bush's corner. Yeah right, just like the rest of the hypocritical Democrats who provided Bush with congressional authorization for military force in Iraq, but are now staking out a position against the war and diligently harpooning Bush. However, I digress.
To continue, all signs do indeed point to an imminent invasion of Iraq. The American-led coalition comprised of approximately 250,000 troops is prepared to strike Iraq -- and strike it will -- within a matter of days. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is scheduled to address his nation's parliament on Tuesday, March 18th and President Bush will surely follow that up a day or so later with a speech bracing the American people for war. I wouldn't be surprised, if by next weekend, maybe earlier, the "shock and awe" (the operative words being bandied about by the military) of 3 000 missiles hitting strategic targets over a 48 hour period not only overwhelm the Iraqis, but the world as well. That's the point -- we need to come in hard and fast to facilitate a quick defeat of enemy forces. Hopefully, high-tech precision weaponry will minimize civilian casualties as planned.
And, although there is talk that Saddam Hussein will not be "specifically targeted" for assassination, in truth we need to kill him off. If that tyrant, who is known to work hand-in-glove with various terrorist organizations, survives and is incarcerated, you can bet your bottom dollar that terrorists will be taking hostages and orchestrating further bombings with demands that Saddam be freed. Even if Saddam manages to negotiate safe haven for himself, family and cronies under some type of authorized deal in exchange for averting war, he will still continue to be a thorn in our side. We will all be better off if that dangerous thug is promptly killed. Saddam is a mass murderer and a torturer - one of the worst human rights violators on our planet.
 British Prime Minister Tony Blair, left, with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, second left, U.S. President George W. Bush and Portugese Prime Minister Jose Durao Barroso, right, speaks to the media at the Lajes joint U.S.-Portuguese air force base in the Azores on March 16 |
For all intents and purposes, the die has been cast -- The emergency summit in the Azores, attended by President George Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, was an attempt to strategize the final diplomatic effort at the United Nations and the inevitable invasion of Iraq. On Sunday, March 16th, President Bush stated "Tomorrow is the moment of truth", referencing our return to the UN Security Council in one last ditch endeavor to obtain UN support for "immediate and unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein".
For many Americans, these incredibly convoluted attempts at diplomacy over at the United Nations are such a waste of time. However, the UN blessing provides European politicians with a certain veneer that is expected by their constituents. Yes, I know it has been stated repeatedly -- Tony Blair, our main ally, needs the political cover, so Bush has agreed to this UN kabuki dance. Interestingly, the aforementioned Fox News Poll found that 74 per cent of Americans think the final decision on our security matters must be made by the US, not the United Nations. So, obviously, our view of the world is profoundly different than the European perspective. Americans believe that we must make decisions that are right for us, in our own best interests, rather than deferring to the world community. In fact, 57 per cent of Americans see the UN as irrelevant if it won't enforce its own resolutions on Iraq.
Therefore, there is a growing recognition among Americans that the UN is essentially a failed institution that is falling by the wayside. Americans are quickly coming to grips with the UN's profound inadequacies, which include: a) its ineffectual ways, and, b) its stark anti-Americanism that seeks to thwart US authority and subjugate the US to UN rule. Even our long time allies, France and Germany, are bent on undermining American sovereignty and our role as the world's only superpower. (As radio host Michael Savage facetiously stated, "We threw off the yoke of European rule in the Revolutionary War, and now we're going to take the yoke back on"). Yet the Europeans, most of whom are Left-leaning globalists, elevate the UN to a curious degree that Americans really can't fathom.
To continue, Bush, Blair and Aznar have agreed to call upon the UN Security Council one last time on Monday, March 17th for the creation of a second resolution that authorizes force in Iraq. Not only is the resolution unlikely to materialize, but most experts believe that it's not even required by international law. In any event, the "coalition of the willing", now comprised of about 36 nations, is poised to move forward with military intervention even if another UN resolution is not forthcoming. It will do so on the strength of prior UN Resolution 1441, which underscored serious consequences if Iraq failed to disarm. I would imagine that Saddam will also be issued an ultimatum by the "coalition of the willing" - Get out of Dodge under the auspices of the US-led coalition or face imminent attack. But, in truth, America and its allies realize that it will obtain little to no cooperation from Saddam Hussein. Moreover, Saddam will never hand over his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's).
For all we know, a sizable cache (or maybe the entirety) of his WMD's may have already be hidden away in Syria or moved out to sea, as rumored months ago. And, sadly, some may have already been transferred into the hands of terrorist organizations to be used against us. Moreover, we must consider this vexing possibility - that neither Saddam nor any WMD's will be found upon our takeover of Iraq. While the US was dithering with the UN Security Council for the past six months, Saddam's arsenal may very well have gone out the back door. And he might sneak out of Iraq this week, just before war ensues. Such a ploy would certainly make the US look incredibly foolish before the world. I truly pray that any of Saddam's shenanigans will be detected and thwarted by an alert alliance.
This nonsense, "Saddam intends to fight and die in Iraq", is antithetical to the ways of a psychopath, and is really just a bunch of hogwash put out by the Iraqi regime for public consumption. My hunch is that Saddam intends to secretly flee to Libya, Syria or another rogue nation within the next few days, leaving his body-doubles in place. He has billions socked away in secret bank accounts, just for this rainy day. And clearly our intelligence network must be particularly attentive to Saddam's whereabouts during this crucial week.
Well, what if Saddam does indeed succeed in escaping,
just before or during the "mother of all battles" in Baghdad? And what
if he was already able to promulgate his WMD's among terrorist groups and other
rogue states? The military is well known for their contingency plans to address
a host of eventualities. Saddam may hope that he can continue to live "the
good life" under the safeguard of one of his tyrant buddies in the Islamic
world, but, in truth, he would never be safe. Of course, "the coalition of
the willing" would be compelled to hunt him down, and search for any WMD's
that were disseminated among the "evildoers". Yes, circumstances could
get very messy. Hopefully, Saddam was never able to construct a nuclear device
-- but clearly, we would still have to worry about chemical and biological weaponry
floating about the terror network and surfacing in an attack upon the US or one
of our allies. The good news is that it would be much easier to get to Saddam
without his elaborate security and Republican Guards watching over him. Maybe
the Israelis could then whack him. 
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines.
 Printer friendly version |
|