Perspective

An article reviewing the official opening of Northcom, the anti-terrorism headquarters, contained this striking quote:

We must continue to refine our operations and wonder what the terrorists thought of that we haven't,' [the Northcom spokesman] said. 'I draw the analogy of the Cold War. It was a war of decades, not a war of years. It will take the same commitment we had in the Cold War to win this war.'

That attitude is why I'm not quite as disheartened as MSR by the recent bad news in Iraq. There's no denying all is not rosy is Iraq, but in my view we're unquestionably moving in the right direction.

There were lots of reasons to go into Iraq, many mentioned in the President's 2003 State of the Union Address. But to me, this is the most important:

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

It is the nexus between WMD and terrorists dedicated to killing as many people as possible that is our largest threat. Such an attack is America's Achillies heel. A WMD attack would not only cost lives, it would have other devestating effects. If you think Ashcroft is a threat to civil liberties now, imagine what would happen after a biological attack, or, heaven forbid, a nuclear attack.

If the attack on Iraq did nothing else, it eliminated the threat that Hussein would provide such weapons to terrorists. Hussein may not have been closely allied with Al Queda, but his actions proved two things: (1) he had consistently tried to develop WMD and (2) he led a renegade government, willing to flout the direct commands of the international community. The failure to find WMD in Iraq doesn't change either of those facts, and thus doesn't change the calculus: Iraq was a very real - if not imminent - threat to provide WMD to Al Queda. Removing that threat was the right thing to do. The recent bad news in Iraq doesn't change that.

Of course, I hope that we're able to do far more than remove that threat, like create a stable, liberal, functioning democracy in the Middle East. I think we will, but even these loftier goals require us to think longer term. Like the War on Terror, rebuilding Iraq will take place over years, or more likely decades, not months. Think Japan after World War II, or Bosnia, or even Kosovo today, where 22,000 U.S. and U.N. troops still remain. Its those efforts, not Vietnam, that are analgous to the situation here. Like we did with Japan, if we stay committed, we'll get to where we want to go. But we'll do it the only way we can: one step at a time.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 5:36 PM