 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The U.S. can't lose by taking on Saddam
Sunday, January 13, 2002
Unremarked upon during the joyous celebrations throughout Afghanistan after the ouster of the Taliban was how commonplace this scene is after American military victories. We saw the same thing in Bosnia and Kosovo and Kuwait, and, not so long ago, in Paris and Rome and Manila and Seoul.
The American pattern in war is clear. We go there. We kill the bad guys. We hand out food and blankets and medicine. Then we go home.
No nation has ever had as much military power as the United States. And no nation has been less likely to use its power selfishly. We are liberators, not conquerors.
Maybe later a vet will go back and open a McDonald's franchise. But this is pretty much the extent of American "imperialism."
Most of the rest of the world is envious of our wealth and power. But this is more the product of flaws in them than of flaws in us.
The French, for instance, dislike us because we don't speak French and our hamburgers have colonized world cuisine. But the only American soldiers in France are those buried near the beaches in Normandy. The Nazis would have remained longer if we hadn't thrown them out.
Former enemies also have benefited from American generosity. Three years after American bombers were flying over Berlin, C-47s were landing every three minutes at Tempelhof airport to bring food and fuel to starving Germans.
American kindness to Germany and Japan was so profound and so unprecedented that the British writer Leonard Wibberly used it as the premise for his hilarious novel "The Mouse That Roared." The rulers of a tiny European duchy are in such desperate economic trouble that they figure the only way they can get out of it is to lose a war to the United States.
In an editorial last month, the Toronto Globe and Mail indicated why it's a good thing President Bush doesn't pay a lot of attention to world opinion.
The Globe and Mail acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is "a ruthless megalomaniac who has murdered thousands of his own people;" that he is an implacable enemy of the United States and that he is building nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as fast as he can. But, says the Globe and Mail, military action against Iraq would be a "recipe for disaster." Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien thinks this, as do most political leaders in Europe, the newspaper noted.
The reasons the Globe and Mail gives for why invading Iraq would be "to step into a pit" indicate that no amount of real world evidence will free Western liberals from their timidity.
"Unlike the ragtag Taliban, Iraq's army of 430,000 is well-trained, well-armed and most unlikely to roll over," says the Globe and Mail.
Really? Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world in January 1991. Within a week, it was only the second-largest army in Iraq. The Iraqi army is smaller and less well equipped now. The United States estimates that 150,000 Iraqi soldiers deserted and 60,000 were captured. Hundreds tried to surrender to helicopters flying overhead. There are no indications morale has improved.
Given a choice between an American tank battalion and an Iraqi armored division, there isn't a soldier on the planet who wouldn't take the American battalion. And that's before you give the battalion commander a radio to an F-16 on station.
If we go to war with Iraq, the question isn't whether we will win, but how quickly and how easily. Some American ground troops will be required, but not many.
If we do not destroy Saddam's regime before he acquires weapons of mass destruction, we risk attacks much more devastating than those of 9/11.
Those who counsel against war in Iraq say they are concerned about American failure. But many also fear American success. The celebrations in Kabul were gall and wormwood to anti-American elitists. They don't wish to see them repeated in Baghdad.
History makes it clear that the American soldier has been the most powerful force for peace and progress in the world. The civilized in every nation should cheer whenever our troops take the field. But envy rules in hearts where gratitude should reign.
Jack Kelly is national affairs writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com).