Saturday, February 15, 2003

There is a clear choice. I think the people reluctantly advocating the use of military force to remove Saddam Hussein have listened to and answered the questions of the other side. However, I have rarely see anything but strict denial, mindless slogans and obfuscation from those defending Saddam.

Only one question remains, then: Are the horrors of war so great -- do the costs outweigh the benefits so grossly -- that the world should turn a blind eye to Saddam's flouting of UN Resolutions? French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who yesterday declared that "war is always the sanction of failure," believes the answer is yes. Germany, Russia and China all staked themselves to similar views. As they see it, war against Iraq would be so awful that the UN should ignore Resolution 1441 -- and the 16 others that came before it. "Why should we now halt the inspections?" declared German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. "On the contrary, the inspectors must be given the time they need to successfully complete their tasks."

To repeat ourselves: War is hell. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Western soldiers will likely die in the coming conflict. And while it is hoped casualties among Iraqi civilians will be few, tears should also be shed for the many Iraqi soldiers who will go to their graves defending a regime they fear and secretly loathe. But the benefits of deposing Saddam and cleansing Iraq of weapons of mass destruction will far outstrip these sacrifices. In his ideology and callous disregard for human life, Saddam is a minor-league heir to Hitler and Stalin -- and his despotic ideology forms a sort of abscess at the heart of the most repressive corner of the Earth. The United States and Britain will lance it whatever Europe's continental appeasers and Canada may think. Someday, the world will thank them for it.

< email | 2/15/2003 01:43:00 PM | link