Volume CXXXII, Number 1 September 13, 2002 f

Baghdad Must Die
PATRICK ROCKEFELLER
STAFF WRITER

One of my favorite columnists, Jonah Goldberg, wrote a while back about how Cato the Elder, a Roman statesman, ended his speeches before the Senate with "Carthargo Delenda Est," or Carthage Must Fall, referring to Rome's greatest menace. Today, it is Baghdad Delenda Est.

The logic behind this is simple, but keep in mind "simple" should not always be the dismissal the French think it should. Indeed, we can see the necessity of acting now based on what we know and the consequences of those facts.
We know Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction, including biological and chemical weapons.

We know that he still has stockpiles of these weapons.

We know that he has used these weapons against fellow Iraqis: the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, now protected by the UN-imposed and US and British enforced no-fly zones.

We therefore know that he is willing to use these weapons again.

We know from defectors, from intelligence gatherings, from his own relatives, and from his own statements that Hussein is attempting to produce nuclear weapons, and that given time, he will.

We know that he has a long history of regional aggression, and has made no secret of his hate for America, the West, and particularly Israel.
Therefore, it stands to reason that America must act now-must act preemptively in order to eliminate this threat before he has developed nuclear capabilities. If America allows Hussein to develop such weapons, Hussein will be allowed to run unchecked in the region, could collaborate with terrorist groups to smuggle nukes into American and European cities, and could launch a nuclear missile at Israel if we were to act against him.
Critics argue that America should only act with allied support. We have allied support. We have Tony Blair's Britain, and Ariel Sharon's Israel backing us. Frankly, few other countries have the military capability to help us, and therefore, we would simply be looking for their approval. We have good reason not to trust that we would get many other countries approval.
For example, France has many economic ties with Iraq, and has in fact been one of their biggest military suppliers since the fall of the USSR-this includes defense systems and jets. Fortunately, the French have never been very good at defense. The possibility of losing those economic ties could cloud their judgment.

Russia is in another compromising situation. They wish to develop strong ties with Iraq, economic, political, and otherwise. They know they would be better off with a different political system in place, but understand that if they back US-led attacks and the US does not finish the job (a la 1991), then they will have gained a new enemy they did not have before.

A third reason not to wait for approval or support is that countries that attack Iraq may become targets of terror themselves. The US, Israel, and Britain are familiar with terrorist attacks and therefore have less to lose. But other countries, many with large unassimilated Muslim populations, could face unrest at home if they pursue actions abroad. Many allies say they will support us if we can prove that Iraq has nuclear weapons and not before. This is ridiculous. If anything, fewer allies will back us if they know their troops may be subject to nukes.

Some argue that this would be a "new kind" of war-a war against a regime that has not directly attacked America or been regionally aggressive. They conclude that this makes the war unjustified. They are wrong.
Preemption may be a new American defense strategy, but that does not make it an unjust tactic. Rather, America has a moral obligation to preempt threats to its citizens and allies. To say otherwise is to claim that we must always wait for evil to strike first, and only after innocents have died may we act. Had we known in the first week of September 2001 what was planned for the 11 would we have waited? Had we known the Japanese Fleet was headed for Pearl Harbor, would we not have preemptively attacked it? We waited and watched as Hitler annexed the Rhineland, but it was not until he raped Poland that Britain and France entered the fray. It was years later before the US joined. How many lives could have been saved through preemption?

Baghdad Delenda Est.