Opinion
Bush Action Trumps Dem. Indecision
by Stephen Cohen
Staff Writer

The Bush administration has been purposely vague in defining its intentions in Iraq. The administration continues to slide back and forth between the goals of regime change and disarmament. Although one may validly criticize the administration for not making its policies clearer, one would have a difficult time claiming the administration is ignoring the problem of Iraq. As President Bush explores many possible solutions to the Saddam problem, one thing has remained constant: Daschle, Gore, and nearly every other Democrat, save Sen. Joe Biden, has had some gripe, complaint, or otherwise negative comment to make. My question to the Democrats is if Bush's policy is so bad, what is your alternative solution?

The Democrats don't have one and the reason why lies in understanding the nature of the chaos that is now gripping the Democratic Party. The Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place on the Iraq issue. On one hand the centrists, like Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Biden, would love to formulate a comprehensive grand strategy to counter Bush's new strategic doctrine of intervention. Yet the Democrats are also strongly influenced by the knee-jerk anti-war base which is strongly opposed to almost all U.S. militaristic intervention. The end result of this conflict is the only thing the Democrats can seem to agree on is they don't like what Bush is saying.

Yet one cannot deny that Iraq is a pressing problem. Have we lost vision of the not so distant past? With the possible exception of Iran, Iraq has been by far the most aggressive pursuer of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Saddam has used these vicious weapons on its neighbors and on its own people. Saddam sends money to the suicide bombers of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigade and many others. Saddam ordered a sniper to try to kill ex-President George Bush while he was visiting Kuwait in 1993. Saddam is a problem that won't go away on its own.

Some agree Saddam is bad, but argue he's not a problem worth going to war over. Let's imagine a world 20 years in the future assuming Gore and likeminded thinkers had controlled the bully pulpit. Assuming the continuation of a policy of inaction, it is not hard to presume Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, and Chechnya will all have developed nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons capabilities.

Maybe if we're lucky we will have skidded by with only minor terrorist incidences. But is the price of peace worth a world where the worst despotic leaders have access to enough weapons to annihilate anyone who opposes their wills? Democrats tried containing North Korea by making deals to stop their nuclear weapons programs. Now it's revealed that North Korea only accelerated its acquisition of WMDs. Democrats tried containment in Iraq, and the only result was getting our weapons inspectors kicked out. But what strategy brought weapons inspectors back? What has brought Iraq back to the bargaining table? Only through the buildup and continual threat of a US led invasion has there been any change in Iraq's policy of defiance. The threat of force is the only call these despotic leaders will respond to.

Problems demand solutions and the Democrats don't have one. Mocking President Bush's policies is not a policy itself. No one denies the prospect of war in Iraq is a risky one. But shall we take the risk of making a mistake in a noble endeavor, or shall we sit idly by as the world's worst and most dangerous despots further develop terrible weapons that will sooner or later end up on our shores? It is question the Democrats think we can ignore.

Page last modified on Wednesday, 01-Mar-2006 23:51:31 MST.