As we approach the anniversary of one of the defining moments in American history, much is unresolved; and the grim reality of it is that there are not necessarily ever going to be clear answers to the many questions that the World Trade Center attack has raised. It is characteristic of Americans with all their energy to want quick resolution of pesky problems; more than one administration has fallen because it has failed to provide the quick-fix. Think of the harried Jimmy Carter, unable to retrieve the Iranian hostages; unceremoniously, he got the boot.
So it is with President Bush, one year later. Osama bin Laden has eluded us, and we are not even sure that he’s alive. The “war” (which has never been formally declared) in Afghanistan has become something of a dull toothache where there are reports of occasional skirmishes; because it is perceived as a “good” war, and casualties are relatively few, the public seems resigned to its indefinite status. Nonetheless it is an event that drains us financially and psychically, and all involved would surely be better off without it; a clear exit does not exist, however.
On the other hand, there is nothing dull about events in the Middle East. Daily tragedies of inestimable magnitudes have become commonplace, and it seems that the degree of unvarnished hatred of America in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia has never been more manifest. Their (“they” being the amorphous enemy) goal seems to be nothing less than the dismantling of our culture. Politically at odds (Iran and Iraq seem united only in their disdain of us), economically destitute, and socially diverse, the one thing that unites them is Islam; yet it seems that the vast majority of Moslems (at least outside the Middle East) at best are only mildly sympathetic and not at all supportive.
Which brings us to Saddam Hussein: To the President he is evil incarnate. He defies us on the issue of weapons-inspection more than a decade after the Gulf War; we have a strong suspicion that he has underwritten much of the terrorism coming out of the Middle East; he likely has both atomic weapons and monstrous chemical and biological weapons which could easily be turned on Israel and ultimately, possibly, on us.
A first strike against Iraq, it could be reasoned, with overwhelming force is exactly what is needed to pull us out of the international morass we find ourselves in and, serendipitously, keep the political wolves at bay. At some point perhaps six months ago it seems a decision was made at the highest levels to assemble the necessary forces and strike at the appropriate moment. Although secrecy is the order of the day in any maneuver of this nature, suddenly early this summer the whole operation was front page headlines in the New York Times in remarkable detail. That has been followed by a succession of news leaks and inevitable demands that Congress be brought into the process.
That was all very predictable; what was not was the opposition both in and out of Congress of leading Republicans. Senator Chuck Hagel and House Majority Leader, Dick Armey, have raised serious concerns, as have former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Curiously, leading Democrats, apparently fearful of 9/11 backlash, have said little until recently.
The President has finally acknowledged the dissent; mindful of Vietnam, he dare not commit the country to any course which will result in anything less than the dismantling of Saddam quickly. This becomes all the more problematical with virtually none of the international support which the President’s father had almost universally in the Gulf War, especially Saudi Arabia which served as a base then and now is in virtual alliance with Iraq. Nearly all of our traditional friends in Western Europe have made their opposition clear even though nothing would make them happier than the demise of Saddam.
What might have started as a relatively uncomplicated venture is now anything but, and the specter of a military quagmire with no end in sight, coupled with the unleashing of weapons of mass destruction, and the possible alliance of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and perhaps even Iran is the stuff of very bad nightmares. And there are always the unintended and totally unforeseen consequences to be fed into the equation (what effect would the venture have on an already wobbly economy, or how might our newly-minted pals in Russia respond?).
All in all, it is a time for serious reflection and honest debate. Perhaps it is too much to expect, but we would hope that partisan differences could be set aside where the stakes are so great.
— Ken Butera