A pacifist concedes: I oppose war, but not this one
What it comes down to is this: We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq.
- Elie Wiesel
Pacifism is a wonderful and worthwhile concept, and one that I strongly believe in. I've come to realize, however, that like any ideology, pacifism is not a one-size-fits-all solution to every situation. In the battle against evil, sometimes one must resort to force sufficient fo defeat that evil. The alternative is to sit back and hope that evil recognizes the error of it's ways. By definition, evil is normally incapable of that sort of rational behavior.
We find ourselves in that situation now. While Raelians protest naked, and those who oppose war march in cities around the world, evil continues to fester. No, Saddam may not be a DIRECT threat to the US, but he has proven himself to be a threat to his neighors. It's no stretch, then, given his behavior, to envision that threat being exported overseas. Are we to wait until that threat becomes a reality before we take action? If you listen to France, Russia, and China, they would have you believe that the answer is yes.
The recent past shows that only military intervention stopped bloodshed in the Balkans and destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Moreover, had the international community intervened in Rwanda, more than 800,000 men, women and children would not have perished there.
Had Europe's great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler's aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II.
Does this apply to the present situation in Iraq? It does. Saddam must be stopped and disarmed. Even our European allies who oppose us now agree in principle, though they insist on waiting.
Wait for what? Will people have to die before the international community decides that the time for action has come? Et tu, Mr. Chamberlain?? Have we learned nothing from history?
But time always plays in dictators' favor. Having managed to hide his biological weapons, Saddam's goal is to be able to choose the time and the place for using them. Surely that is why he threw out the U.N. inspectors four years ago. If he now appears to offer episodic minor concessions, just as surely that is because American troops are massing at his borders.
In certain political circles, one hears demands for proof that Saddam is still in possession of forbidden weapons. Some European governments evidently do not believe U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's statement that Saddam has such weapons, but I do, and here is why:
Powell is a great soldier and one who does not like war. It was he who prevailed upon then-President Bush in 1991 not to enter Baghdad. It was he who advised the current president not to bypass the U.N. system. If he says that he has proof of Saddam's criminal disregard of the U.N. resolutions, I believe him. I believe that a man of his standing would not jeopardize his name, his career, his prestige, his past and his honor.
We have known for a long time that the Iraqi ruler is a mass murderer. In the late 1980s, he ordered tens of thousands of his own citizens gassed to death. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait. After his defeat, he set its oil fields on fire, thus causing the worst ecological disaster in history. He also launched Scud missiles on Israel, which was not a participant in that war. He should have been indicted then for crimes against humanity. Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic was arrested and brought to trial for less.
Add to the evidence against him Saddam's conversation with CBS anchor Dan Rather. Listening to him declaring that Iraq was not defeated in 1991 made one wonder about his sanity; he appears to live a world of fantasy and hallucination.
The nightmarish question of what such a man might do with his arsenal of unconventional weaponry is why, more than ever, some of us believe in intervention. We must deal sooner rather than later with this madman whose possession of weapons of mass destruction threatens to provoke an ever-widening conflagration.
Time is one thing if you are dealing with bullets and conventional bombs. When the equation includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, however, the luxury of time is simply not available. By the time that the international community is through dragging their feet, hundreds- perhaps thousands- of innocent civilians could be dead. Must Saddam demonstrate his evil again before we act?
I am no advocate or fan of war, but I do share Mr. Wiesel's conviction that sometimes war- as horrible as it is to contemplate- is the lesser of evils. We must stop Saddam before he uses the capability that we already know he possesses. Appeasement does not work, and cannot be considered a viable option-or has Neville Chamberlain returned in the form of Jacques Chirac??
