It’s Time to Quit Diplomatic Dance and Destroy Iraq’s Deadly Weapons

Some episodes in history, you look back and you wonder, “What were they thinking of?”
As I write, American forces are converging. By the time you read this, the metallic density of the air over Iraq may have increased significantly. Cruise missiles, perhaps–When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best. But go easy, guys. The assembly line’s cold and we’ve been shooting them off at an alarming rate.

The B-2 bomber, perhaps. Or maybe not. At $800 million a copy, when it’s too expensive to lose, it’s too expensive to use.

Tactical aviation, perhaps. But then you risk losing people, and another POW spectacle. It wouldn’t be pretty, watching the TV broadcast of Saddam’s latest trophy and wondering what they’ve done to her, and will.

Maybe we’ll bomb again, demonstrating our resolve to demonstrate our resolve. Or maybe we’ll back off again, demonstrating other qualities. In either case, the question will remain. What were they thinking of?

But who, precisely, are “They?” Not the men and women preparing for battle. We can guess their mix of concerns and emotions. Rather, They are the people extolled by Senator Joseph Biden in his now infamous hissy fit when Scott Ritter, the former UN arms inspector, appeared before him in committee. They are the ones who get the limos and the big bucks to make the tough calls.

At least according to Senator Biden, who apparently presumes that limos and big bucks equate to–or confer–omniscience.

So what are They thinking of?

Some years ago, historian Loren Baritz characterized the mental processes of those who got us into Vietnam: the work of men who didn’t know how to win, but couldn’t conceive of losing. Perhaps we’ve come full circle. The last six years of our Iraqi muddle have been crafted by men and women who couldn’t conceive of winning, but didn’t know how to lose.

Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that the geniuses who gave us Vietnam didn’t want to know how to win, and that those who have (once again) shuffled off and scurried our dwindling corps of warriors don’t even have the fig leaf of not wanting to know.

They of the limos and the big bucks–they haven’t a clue.

Yes, we can bomb. We can bomb forever, or at least as long as supplies last. But in the Gulf, as in Vietnam–why can’t we learn this?–the problem is not military success. It’s converting military success into political success. We annihilated the Viet Cong. We decimated the NVA every chance we got. We lost. Or, more precisely, we didn’t stick around to lose. Is it once again time to leave?

Not hardly. But we need to change the manner in which, and the reasons why, we stay.

Vietnam mattered because it was a place of no intrinsic significance to us. We could define (now we say, spin) the war any way we wanted: containment of communism, Amerikan evil, whatever. Then we could redefine (respin) it as unimportant and bug out, leaving only a few million souls who believed our promises and losing only honor.

But weapons of mass destruction, Iraq’s and everybody else’s, do matter. So what’s the world’s “One Indispensable Nation” (when will we ever learn?) to do?

First, call our current stance by its proper name. It is neither strategy nor policy. It is spin, conducted in violence: the spasmodic violence of the irresolute. Perhaps Mr. Clinton will try to spin the people with stern Oval Office grandiloquence. Who will believe him? And who shall not be excused for recalling his other Oval Office activities? Perhaps Mr. Clinton shall spin us again. More likely, Saddam Hussein will continue to spin him and us . . . like a yoyo.

But spin is a curious thing. Winston Churchill once remarked that, in war, the truth must be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies. Tod Lindberg, an astute Beltway pundit, suggested recently that the function of spin is to provide lies with a bodyguard of truth.

Yes, it is true that Saddam is evil, and that weapons of mass destruction now pose a clear and present danger to the world. But these truths can no longer guard the lie. The lie is that They have a clue.

But They, and we, could, were They and we but willing to know how to win.

It is time to abandon the UN arms inspection charade and the sanctions fiasco. Seven years is enough. The issue is not inspection. It is keeping these weapons from being used. And this should be our policy.

Any nation, not just Iraq, that uses such weapons against America, our friends, and our interests, can expect deadly retaliation in a manner of American timing and choice. America also reserves the right to launch pre-emptive strikes, should use of such weapons appear imminent or likely, and to strike at or interdict the materials and facilities necessary for the construction of such weapons and delivery systems.

Nation-states shall be held fully accountable for the actions of groups they harbor and support. Liberals should have no trouble with this; it merely codifies the trendy PC premise that gun manufacturers should be held liable for the acts of their customers.

Further, no American act should be considered an automatic precedent for future similar acts. Nor should American inaction signal future self-restraint in any specific case.

Finally, the so-called “World Community” is free to complain as much as it likes. During the Congressional debate preceding the Gulf War, then-Senator William Cohen noted that the Israelis had struck the Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant “to universal condemnation and relief.” If that’s how it has to be done, so be it.

One final item. This is a deadly serious business. Spin has no place here. It’s not just that it doesn’t work. It’s that, every time we spin with violence, we also violate ourselves.