I found this editorial by Madeleine Albright in today's NY Times. Thoughts?
September 13, 2002
Where Iraq Fits in the War on Terror
By MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
WASHINGTON ? The core of President Bush's forcefully delivered message on Iraq at the United Nations yesterday was irrefutable. Saddam Hussein is a serial liar, a bully and a threat to peace. He has used chemical weapons, and he yearns to impress an Arab world that despises him by building a deliverable nuclear bomb.
The president made a strong case for international action that results either in Iraqi compliance with its obligations or the establishment of a new and, ultimately, democratic government in Baghdad. There should be bipartisan backing for such a policy here at home, and the president wisely has chosen to solicit global support instead of attempting to go it alone.
I hope, however, that the president will not be pushed by his hard-line advisers into an unwise timetable for military action. We should pick this fight at a moment that best suits our interests. And right now, our primary interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda and related terrorist networks.
Earlier this week, the International Institute of Strategic Studies released a summary of Iraq's military capabilities that foreshadowed the president's words yesterday. Iraq likely has significant quantities of biological warfare agents and some chemical munitions. It is striving to acquire or develop nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence it has succeeded. It may have a dozen missiles that could be used to threaten nearby states.
Saddam Hussein is the enemy we know. Since the administration of former President George H.W. Bush, each time Mr. Hussein has pushed, we have pushed back. Today, American and British planes enforce no-flight zones over 40 percent of his country and a maritime force prevents weapons from reaching Iraq by sea. Saddam Hussein's military is far weaker than it was a decade ago. And he must surely be aware that if he ever again tries to attack another country he will be obliterated. All that is grounds for calm, but not complacency.
The president said he is willing to work with the Security Council. I hope that will include an explicit call for United Nations weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, although I doubt Iraq will accept them. By promoting that option first, the administration would strengthen the diplomatic case for subsequent action. As the president pointed out, during the past decade Iraq has failed to comply with a host of Security Council directives. If Baghdad persists in its defiance, the president has rightly placed the burden on those who oppose the use of force to explain how else compliance may be assured. One cannot insist on the council's central role in promoting international security and law, then look the other way when the will of the council is repeatedly defied.
Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam Hussein to other, more urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being compromised, a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address again seems directly relevant to our lives.
In the aftermath of tragedy a year ago, the chief executive told our nation that fighting terrorism would be "the focus of my presidency." That ? not Iraq ? remains the right focus.
During the past four years, Al Qaeda has attacked Americans here at home, in Africa and in the Middle East. We still do not know where its top operatives are or what they might be planning. There is evidence that Qaeda members are returning to Afghanistan, where thousands of Taliban supporters still live and lawlessness prevails. We have not given the government of Hamid Karzai even a fraction of the help it needs to make Afghanistan a permanent terrorist-free zone. Creation of an effective worldwide antiterror coalition remains a work in progress. Restructuring our intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and military to defeat the terrorist threat continues to be in the design stage.
Obviously, we cannot wait until terrorism is entirely eradicated to deal with Saddam Hussein. But it makes little sense now to focus the world's attention and our own military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial resources on a plan to invade Iraq instead of on Al Qaeda's ongoing plans to murder innocent people. We cannot fight a second monumental struggle without detracting from the first one.
The administration should take the time necessary to broaden support for its Iraq policy, respond to Congressional inquiries, strengthen Iraqi opposition groups, fine-tune military planning, develop a coherent blueprint for the post-Hussein era, identify the massive resources that will be required to fund the war and its aftermath, and conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling tensions in the Middle East. If United Nations inspectors are again rebuffed by Iraq, we should also give notice that we will destroy without warning any facilities in that country that we suspect are being used to develop prohibited arms. Even if those suspicions are later proved wrong, the blame should fall on Iraq for denying access, not on the United States for trying to enforce the Security Council's will. In the same vein, we should make it clear that anyone who assists Iraq's nuclear program will be considered an enemy of the United States.
At the United Nations yesterday, the president began the job of spelling out the what and why of our policy toward Baghdad. The wisdom of that policy, however, will ultimately hinge on when he chooses to act.
Madeleine K. Albright was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and United States ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997. |
