Home >  Opinion >  Columnists

Powell stripped camouflage from the anti-war position

Sunday, February 09, 2003

In the eyes of most observers, Secretary of State Colin Powell demonstrated conclusively that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; that he is actively concealing his weapons programs from U.N. inspectors; and that he has provided shelter for al-Qaida terrorists and given them training in the manufacture and use of biological and chemical weapons.

		Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com).

The New York Times called Powell's case "powerful." The Washington Post called it "irrefutable." Canada's National Post said it was "impressive." The Times of London said it was "a withering reposte to Iraq's taunt the United States has no proof." Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, called Powell's evidence "very solid." Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the evidence was "cast iron."

More significant than the facts Powell presented, or the calm and measured way in which he presented them, was the fact that the presentation was made at all. By showing the satellite photos and playing the tapes of communications intercepts, Powell supplied the Iraqis with considerable information about the capabilities, sources and methods of U.S. intelligence. This will make it much easier for the Iraqis to hide things from U.S. intelligence in the future. Powell, and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet at his side, know this full well. It is a step they would not have taken if they did not think it soon will not matter how much the current Iraqi regime knows about our sources and methods. War is only weeks away.

Powell stripped the camouflage from the anti-war position. In the wake of Powell's presentation, the only ones who continue to oppose military action are those with an inordinate fear of war, or an inordinate hatred of the United States.

Anti-war spokesmen rely on arguments that are demonstrably false and logically inconsistent. Those who predicted a "quagmire" in Afghanistan now predict a quagmire in Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan was won quickly and easily.

Those who said war in Afghanistan would result in massive casualties among Afghani civilians now say war in Iraq will produce massive casualties among Iraqi civilians. But there were few civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Those who said the people in Afghanistan would side with the Taliban against the United States say the people of Iraq will side with Saddam Hussein. But the people of Afghanistan rejoiced in the overthrow of the Taliban.

Those who said U.S. military action against the Taliban would cause the Arab "street" to boil over predict that U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein will cause the Arab "street" to boil over. But the Arab street was quiet during and after the Afghan war.

Those who oppose military action warn of vague but dire consequences if the United States "goes it alone." But it is evident to all with eyes in their head that America is by no means alone. In Europe, the objections of the governments of France and Germany have been highly publicized. But the leaders of 19 other European countries have expressed support for U.S. policy against Iraq.

In the Persian Gulf, the objections of Saudi Arabia and Syria have been widely publicized. But the United States has support from Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Russia and China are opposed to using force to oust Saddam. But Australia is sending troops, and Japan is inclined to support.

If Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, or were willing to give them up, there would be no war. If there is a war, and Saddam does not use weapons of mass destruction, it will be over quickly, with few casualties on either side, and the Iraqis will be freed of a dictator who has murdered a million of his own people in the course of his bloody reign. If there are mass casualties, it will only be because Saddam has used weapons of mass destruction, which will be grim proof of the need to disarm him before he becomes more dangerous than he already is.

The nature of Saddam's regime and his intentions are clear, in the way that the nature of Hitler's regime and his intentions were clear. Had Britain and France stopped Hitler when the Nazis marched into the Rhineland, or into the Sudetenland, there would have been no Second World War.

Shrinking from facing up to evil produces not peace, but a Holocaust. And those who excuse evil to delay war are cowards, not pacifists.