Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Saddam keeps pushing U.S. to put its power to use

Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1998 | 10:40 a.m.

If the United States of America contemplates military action, the people deserve an explanation. Yesterday, we got it.

When President Bill Clinton travelled to the Pentagon for what may be a final briefing before he orders air and other strikes against Iraq, he scheduled a speech to the commanding servicemen and women who work at the nation's seat of military power in the full knowledge that what he said would be transmitted across this country and, of course, monitored closely in other parts of the world. Most notably, Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

For in his explanation of why America must stand up to the bully of Baghdad, now not later, President Clinton presented a history of broken promises and failed commitments by Iraq's bloody dictator whose defiance of the world community has become his distorted source of strength. Going back to Hussein's complete surrender at the end of the Gulf War, the President discussed the promises Hussein made to the United Nations to rid his country of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and any existing delivery systems. And, he promised the United Nations that he would cease any further production of the same.

It is seven years since those promises were made. They were broken within days after having been given. The result is that the U.N. inspection team and U.S. and other intelligence agencies are convinced that he has repositioned himself as a maker, holder and future deliverer of the most dangerous and deadly weapons of mass destruction known to man. And, given his nature, he is fully capable of loosing them on his neighbors at the slightest whim.

Following President Clinton's address, there was unanimity of purpose flowing from the Congress -- both sides of the aisle -- as hawks and doves re-iterated the need to stem, as best we can, the potential of Saddam's ability to use these weapons against either his neighbors or his own people, both of which he has done in the past. Some, as expected, urged the Commander-in-Chief to take the bold step of eradicating the need to deal with Saddam in the future.

It was clear to anyone who listened that the President, while measured in the action he is willing yet reluctant to take, believes strongly that now is the time for the world to act. We have witnessed other times in history when the "good" countries failed to either recognize a problem or were just willing to turn their backs while others put up the good fight. The results have always been the same. When the world acts too late the consequences are always worse than when the right thing is done at the right time.

Allowing Hussein to have the ability --coupled with his proven desire -- to use weapons of mass destruction is to continue down a road of appeasement that will lead to disaster, not only for his neighbors but, potentially, for the entire world.

Indeed, the world is a vastly different place to live today. Just a few years ago, two countries possessed the majority of the world's destructive power. We understood the Soviet Union as they did us. With our former Cold War nemesis gone, the weapons they amassed and the brainpower it took to build and operate them have sometimes been sold to the highest bidder or any bidder who had the cash. Today, any rogue dictator or country can seize on such weapons and become an overnight threat to the modicum of peace and stability that now rules the planet.

That is the world we have to deal with in the next century. And, unless we let every would-be bully know that at least one country, the United States of America, is willing to stand up and be counted on behalf of her citizens and her future, then everyone will find themselves prey to tomorrow's bad actors.

Let's be certain. This is not a "policeman for the world" pitch, although the case can easily be made. Rather, it is a "policeman for the citizens of this country" plan that requires us to be everywhere at all times to insure the safety of Americans, wherever they be.

People are asking why other Middle Eastern "allies" aren't on board like they were in 1991. The simple truth is I and you don't know that they aren't. What those small, weak and very vulnerable Arab countries say publicly oftentimes has little to do with what they commit to our leadership privately. It is just that it is easier to stay alive if it appears you are going along with the program dictated by those who hold your life in their hands. And, even if our friends disagree with our intentions, there has to come a time when we have to do what we believe is right.

I remember when Israel made a daring bombing mission into the heart of Iraq in 1981, defying the entire world community. In short, all the good people on this planet were appalled publicly at how Israel, on her own, could have the temerity to bomb a nuclear weapons plant at Osirak. Privately, of course, they applauded Israel's heroism in acting out of not only her self defense but the self defense of the rest of the world. Any thoughts on what a Saddam Hussein would have been like in Desert Storm if he had nuclear weapons to throw our way?

Osirak is illustrative of where we find ourselves today. The difference, of course, is that the U.S. has a great deal of support for our contemplated actions to seriously diminish Saddam's ability to make war. And, the United States is, to put it simply, the United States. The only super power in the world.

It is incumbent upon us to use that power wisely. But, when we have to, to use it. As President Clinton makes the case, this may be one of those times.