Iraq's ripple effect

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted December 22, 2003

The Bush administration is on a roll! President Bush has struck
all the right notes, without gloating or engaging in "triumphalism",
despite the glorious week for the "war on terror" that vindicates
Bush policies. First Saddam Hussein is captured, and now
Libyan leader Moammar al-Ghadafi is eschewing his outlaw
ways. But that's not all. Considerably more has transpired, as
our successes continue to breed momentum.

In recent days, more al-Qaida operatives within Iraq have been
arrested, terror cells in Baghdad have been taken down, and al-
Qaida-linked drug ships (transporting contraband such as heroin,
hashish, and methamphetamines for the purpose of financing
terrorism) have been seized. Furthermore, Iraqis are now joining
their nation's security services in record numbers and many are
stepping forward with crucial intel, which is certainly attributable
to Saddam's arrest.

And, as if all that terrific news weren't enough, France and
Germany have agreed to forgive some Iraqi debt accrued by
Saddam. Clearly, average Iraqis shouldn't be saddled with the
bills of a terrible tyrant and his excesses. France and Germany's
new stance is particularly significant, given that both nations have
been staunch critics of the Iraq War and the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein. Maybe it's finally dawning on France and
Germany that the vast majority of Iraqis received bupkis from
Saddam's regime, not even reliable water and electricity, and
were subjected to ongoing abuses as well.

The aforesaid achievements are no small feat, and the Bush
administration certainly deserves considerable kudos. That being
said, the American public is pleased with the current status of the
"war on terror" as demonstrated by the results of the latest
Gallop survey -- Two-thirds of Americans now view the
decision to go to war in Iraq favorably. And President Bush's
job approval rating is in the same ballpark at 63 per cent.

President Bush is currently positioned head and shoulders above
any potential Democratic rival in the 2004 race. If the
presidential election were held today, Gallop has Bush running at
60 per cent in the polls, notably ahead of Democratic frontrunner
Howard Dean at 37 per cent. The Bush juggernaut is making the
Democrats apoplectic, especially those seeking the Democratic
presidential nomination. Howard Dean, for one, is coming across
as an undisciplined campaigner at best, or an eccentric at worst,
as he floats some strange conspiracy theory that President Bush
had been tipped-off to the 9/11 attacks before hand. The
Democrats have only spewed vitriolic, and sometimes bizarre,
claptrap about President Bush, which thankfully isn't resonating.
Here's the crux of the problem for the Democrats: They have
failed to provide coherent and viable alternatives to Bush
policies, which reflect in the polls. In politics, vituperation is
insufficient – A positive vision and solid policies must also be
articulated. Currently, that's not being accomplished by any
candidate among the band of Democratic presidential
wannabees.

To continue with the saga of Colonel Moammar al-Ghadafi, he
was hard-pressed to maintain Libya's status quo once 9/11
occurred -- The Iraq War was in the works and the days of his
brethren Saddam Hussein were undoubtedly numbered. The
notorious Ghadafi, known for his own WMDs and sponsorship
of terror, understood that some semblance of change was
required for his survival, as he shrewdly sought diplomatic
intervention that would ensure his continuity of rule. The Libyan
despot embarked on a course of reform, including a settlement
with the families of the ill-fated Pan Am Flight 103 blown out of
the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 by Libyan operatives.
Now Ghadafi has ostensibly acquired a newfound dedication to
fighting terrorism and preventing proliferation of catastrophic
weaponry. Ghadafi claims he'll forgo the pursuit of WMDs,
including nuclear, chemical and long-range missile programs, and
permit ongoing international weapons inspections in Libya for
verification purposes. But has Ghadafi really changed his stripes?
Or was he concerned that Libya would eventually be slated for
the "war on terror" hit list?

The truth of the matter is that negotiations and rapprochement
will only get you so far in today's perilous world, and despots
such as Ghadafi primarily understand the language of force. Yes,
Ghadafi has agreed to pivotal concessions and the rehabilitation
of Libya, but only after seeing what transpired in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Simply put, Ghadafi realized that turning over a new leaf
was the only way to save his precious hide. Moreover, it's
becoming increasingly evident that Bush policies are producing
intended results, persuading outlaw regimes enmeshed in
terrorism and WMDs to mend their ways or risk "regime
change". And, of course, there are a host of other potential
benefits awaiting Libya, since it will no longer be considered a
pariah among nations – Libya, in theory, will have the
opportunity to transform itself and pursue prosperity, devoid of
the debilitating economic sanctions that will be lifted in due
course. But my guess is that Ghadafi will move very, very slowly
on any type of reforms, economic or otherwise.
 
However, first, Ghadafi must demonstrate his commitment to
dismantling his WMDs programs and fighting international
terrorism. Ghadafi's son says Libya wants "Coca Cola and Pepsi
Cola", a metaphor for the modern life and a more prosperous
lifestyle. And that's what President Bush and all like-minded
individuals want for the world – prosperity and freedom, which
will dissuade the Jihadist mentality and make the world a safer
place. President Bush's has created the catalyst for change, a
paradigm shift that could possibly revolutionize the Islamic world.

Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online
magazines.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com