The Courage To Do
What Must Be Done

Today's newspapers, and our streets, are full of people protesting the increasing likelihood that America and its allies will soon be at war. I respect the sincerity of those pacifists who oppose any and all war. But those protesting the war who are not strict pacifists really need to start asking themselves some hard questions.

Most Americans who have paid any attention to this issue over the past 12 years do not question that the ruler of Iraq is unquestionably one of the most evil men in power anywhere in the world today. He has caused over a million deaths in his wars against four neighboring countries. He is the only ruler known to have used poison gas against his own people. He has spent 20 years trying to make or acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and nuclear.

Scarcely a family in Iraq has been spared having a relative killed in one of Saddam's endless wars, or dragged off to Saddam's prisons and torture chambers, or—in not a few cases—executed by Saddam in person. Saddam has harbored terrorists—Al Qaeda, Abu Nidal and others. No one doubts but what he will give them weapons of mass destruction for use against his enemies. He supported an attempt to assassinate a former American President in the streets of Kuwait.

And throughout all this, Saddam Hussein has remained oblivious to the misery, squalor and heartbreak of his own citizens. He has used the proceeds of oil sales in defiance of a United Nations embargo, not to cover his land with health clinics and schools, but to build one after another opulent palaces for himself and his two even more psychopathic sons. It is fair to say that even Hitler and Stalin, two of the worst mass murderers in human history, enjoyed more popular support than Saddam Hussein.

In 1991 the United Nations ordered Saddam Hussein to get out of Kuwait, a neighboring country he had invaded and pillaged. He refused. A U.S.-led coalition came together and expelled his armies through force. Over the years the United Nations has adopted 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam destroy his weapons of mass destruction. The most recent one, Resolution 1441, called on him to cooperate fully with UN inspectors and disarm, or face "serious consequences."

In response to 12 years of UN resolutions, he has played a game of "cheat and retreat," moving his stockpiles and allowing inspectors to see only what he is willing to let them see. What little he has done to comply over the past month has come only in the face of a massive military buildup.

Last fall the United States went to the UN Security Council and asked for, and got, that last tough resolution. The UN put its name and prestige on the line: disarm, or face "serious consequences." Saddam is not disarming. He won't account for the weapons he once agreed that he had. The final serious consequence is the use of armed force. That time has come.

But some disagree. They say "Yes, Saddam is a bad man. Yes, his suffering country and the world would be better off if he and his murderous henchmen were swallowed up by the desert. But the nations of the world must not attack him. We must wait until it is clear that he has loosed mass destruction upon us. Only then are we justified in going to war."

"Moreover," say the protesters, "Saddam is not capable of attacking the United States. We have him in the box. Let's send in more inspectors! Let's give him more weeks, months, years!" This is fatuous. Twelve years of cheat and retreat was enough for the Security Council, when it adopted Resolution 1441 and threatened "serious consequences."

Suppose President Bush and Secretary Powell somehow succumbed to this appeal. Suppose our military returned home to Fort Benning and Fort Bragg, Norfolk and LeJeune, Davis-Monthan and Whiteman. Suppose we announced that we and the UN would withdraw our forces. Do you think Saddam would continue to be motivated to "comply" with Resolution 1441?

Tell me, protesters: in a year hence, would America be better off? Would the United Nations be better off? Would the suffering people of Iraq be better off? Would Osama bin Laden conclude that his work here is done? Would the ruler of North Korea back off and join the peaceloving nations of the world? Would the cause of world peace be better off? I want you to look me in the eye and say "Yes, indeed." I don't think so.

There is a maxim in law enforcement that 5% of the people cause 95% of the problems. On our planet, Saddam Hussein is a leading figure of that five percent. His capacity for the destruction of more millions of innocent people remains unrestrained. The world community, the United Nations, has massed its moral force to demand that he disarm. Now it's time for a coalition of the willing, headed by the only military power capable of vanquishing Saddam's war machine, to make the UN's mandate stick. Without the US and its military capabilities the UN cannot enforce Resolution 1441.

Either way, we, the US will be called upon to disarm Iraq but the price will be much higher the longer we put it off. If we fail to do so, an emboldened Saddam will certainly mount a new offensive against the lives of countless people in his region—most of them, incidentally, Muslims. The U.S. will certainly face an increased incidence of terror attacks.

The United Nations will go the way of the League of Nations, which collapsed rather than stand against Mussolini's aggression in Ethiopia. The hopes and dreams of millions of oppressed Arabs and Kurds yearning to live in a free society will turn to dust.

I am immensely grateful that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have the courage to do what must be done, distasteful as it may be. There can be little doubt but what the consequences of backing down are far, far more calamitous than doing what has to be done. Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, give the order. The world's best military force will get the job done. The great mass of loyal Americans will stand with them, and you. Let’s roll!

William Corrow

Williamstown

William Corrow is a retired Air Force officer with 24 years service, specializing in counterterrorism and nuclear security. He served during the last Gulf War and in Bosnia with the UN. He lives in Williamstown, Vermont.

____________