A rchive Date
[ 09-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Iraq ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/downing.html
It'll be worse if Saddam plays nice
By JOHN DOWNING -- Toronto Sun
February 9, 2003
If Saddam Hussein had entered the UN Security Council waving a "smoking gun" last Wednesday, only Colin Powell and Britain's Jack Straw would have confronted him and, I would hope, have blown him away.
Afterward, the event would have had to be described to those dubious Boobsey Twins of diplomacy, Germany and France, the representatives of which would have averted their eyes, and then insisted it never happened. And many UN members would blame the U.S. for making Hussein a monster in the first place.
At least they admit he's a monster. Of that there's no doubt. Even those opposed to war have to concede that. There are atrocities beyond dispute, for which Hussein has waved "smoking guns" in triumph. But then the arguing starts, not because the Americans don't have the evidence but because too many close their eyes to what is revealed because they just don't like the pushy giant and its suspect oily motives.
I would rather be wrong with the Americans than right with Saddam Hussein, because the world will have to confront him sooner or later. As Powell warned, we face an "even more frightening future" because Saddam "will stop at nothing until something stops him." His megalomania will never be satisfied with his cruel domination at home if he can blackmail with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and spread palaces to his glory through the Mideast.
All the media, diplomats and apologists chewing the "smoking gun" phrase to death should study its birth, because crimes (or war crimes) are never as neat as they appeared to be in 1893 after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had his legendary detective explain the clues. The origin of the phrase is elementary, dear reader, as William Safire, the New York Times word maven, reminded people like me who have read every word of the Sherlock Holmes canon. It came in one of the lesser stories, Gloria Scott. "We rushed into the captain's cabin ... he lay with his brains smeared over the chart ...while the chaplain stood with a smoking pistol in his hand."
Throughout the Watergate era, and now with Iraq, the phrase is used as a demand for incontrovertible physical evidence rather than circumstantial evidence woven as a net. Except Powell did not have to prove by that UN resolution that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, Saddam had to prove he wasn't. A huge difference!
These are the arguments for a U.S. attack. We know Saddam is dangerous and has used WMD. The circumstantial evidence is that he's still building them. We know his country is suffering and would benefit from democracy, which would pull power from the Saudis, help the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate - where Saddam and Security Council member Syria aid the terrorists - and help liberalize the Arab world. Sure, it would intensify the Arab hatred against the West but al-Qaida won't stop even if the U.S. does against Iraq.
Those opposed say continue with containment and inspections, which they claim work, when plainly they haven't. Everyone worries about the next reason: terrible casualties for all. Then there's another worrisome one: that democracy won't work in Iraq because it's an artificial country.
Playing peek-a-boo
However, those who don't want the Americans to attack should be careful what they wish for. Say Saddam next week says he will allow for surveillance overflights and will stop playing peek-a-boo with inspectors. After all, he may be deranged but he's not suicidal, judging from all his doubles and the care he takes not to be assassinated. So he does everything asked of him, or pretends to, and stays in power. What happens then? The prospect should ground some doves.
If Saddam is addicted to regional influence now, with his economy and oil wealth hampered by the UN and the Americans, what happens if the UN rules he has complied with its demands and lifts the sanctions on trade and oil?
Next February, with Iraq supposedly disarmed and inspectors still chasing WMD ghosts, Iraq would be a significant economic power and America's enemies would have a potent symbol in a dictator who defied the U.S. and prospered. Meanwhile, Saddam would still be funding and supplying terrorism, along with the Saudis and Syrians, and fears of more terrorism would haunt us all.
Such a scenario was sketched by the editor of the important magazine Foreign Policy, under the headline "The danger of a compliant Saddam." The message is lost on those chirping on the Internet who think if we stick our heads in the sands of Wasaga rather than Iraq, the threat will disappear. There's even a song to the tune of If You're Happy and You Know It: "If you're happy and you know it, bomb Iraq/ If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq/ If the terrorists are frisky/ Pakistan is looking shifty/ North Korea is too risky/ Bomb Iraq!"
I worry over what will happen if they don't!
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com Downing appears Fridays, Sundays
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|