Wednesday, January 22, 2003

An argument that if we really wanted peace there should be more war.

But the anti-war movement does not hold a monopoly on peace as a desired goal. To them, peace — or the absence of war — is an end unto itself, a self-evident achievement, the period at the end of the sentence. They have no patience with complications and miserable realities, and very little knowledge of what Iraqis want for themselves.

Assuredly, Iraqis do not want war. But they do want the removal of Saddam Hussein. And if that happens, if Hussein is provided with his exit papers and a place of sanctuary, it won't be because of peace marches in the West and opposition from the American "street." It will be because the U.S., and the British, held a gun to his head. That's the only reality Saddam understands, probably because he's applied it so often himself.

The useful naïveté of the anti-war movement is, at least, well-intentioned, unlike the perfidy of fair-weather allies, such as the French, who Monday were making loud noises about blocking approval of an invasion at the U.N. Security Council. Along with Russia and Jordan, France has been one of the biggest violators of U.N. economic sanctions against Iraq — imposed after Desert Storm in a futile attempt to get Saddam to disarm — even while enjoying profits as the second-largest recipient of oil-for-food contracts. Iraq owes France $4.5 million from pre-Gulf War sales and remains one of its largest trading partners. It was the French who built the nuclear reactor at Tuwaitha, outside Baghdad, that was obliterated by Israeli warplanes in 1981.

So, spare me the French and their moral high ground. They are utterly self-absorbed and mercenary.

But they are a comfort and lifeline in these waning days of desperation for Saddam Hussein.

As is the benevolent, but blinding, idealism of pacifists.

< email | 1/22/2003 11:12:00 AM | link