Not a Strategy

The desperate effort to stave off our only reasonable hope of disarming Saddam, ending his threat to the region, and breaking the spirit of Islamofascists continues in this column arguing for a lengthy program of bombing combined with inspections. Inspections would destroy programs and material that is found while bombing would destroy what the Iraqis will not destroy or declare.

Wow, this guy should do stand-up comedy. The myriad fallacies and wishes that are required to make this a strategy for the real world are stupefying.

First of all, Leghorn complains that we are in an "all or nothing" mode and that we are not giving any middle ground a chance. Right. As if we haven’t been in a "nothing" strategy for eleven years given the obstruction that Iraq is guilty of. He wants a middle ground. That even in the best of worlds such a policy would fail is merely the most amazing part of this article. The specifics are a hoot. First, he defends his middle ground by listing all the ways that invasion could cause problems. Sure, they are all potential problems, but why not list the problems of his middle course? First of all (and I’m taking these in no particular order of outrage), he says precise air strikes could destroy the facilities without risking his concern that Iraq could be wrecked in an invasion. So, the Iraqis won’t have these facilities located in the middle of civilian targets? They won’t trick us into bombing a senior citizen center with a bio lab in the basement? They won’t simply claim casualties even when none occur? (And we all know the world will believe them even as we take extraordinary care to avoid civilian casualties.) And how long to we keep this up? Won’t this extended bombing trigger resentment in the Arab and Moslem world? Then he says we should expand the no-fly zones and that firing on any aircraft would be a material breach of the UN inspections resolution. But the UN does not recognize our no-fly zones. They don’t think the latest firing constitutes a material breach. Just how are we going to get the UN Security Council to agree to official, expanded zones with a no tolerance of Iraqi anti-aircraft firing? We’ll just sprinkle some pixie dust on the French and voila! Then of course, Leghorn says we will be authorized to conduct recon at any altitude and then pass on the data to the inspectors. Ok, given the Iraqi eagerness to shoot down one of our planes and capture a pilot (they do offer rewards to their anti-aircraft people) we are to believe that they will not shoot. Then, despite prior Iraqi complaints that intelligence people from the West "interfered" with the objective (read that, ineffective) work of the inspectors and disrespected Iraqi sovereignty (read that, actually insisting on visiting likely weapons labs), we are to believe now this cooperation will be just fine with Saddam. Leghorn also says that if air strikes aren’t effective in disarming Iraq, we can always invade. So, I guess invasion isn’t really bad as such, he simply hopes against all evidence that we can actually bomb away their weapons and programs in an indefinite military campaign. Only after we give Saddam time to actually build a nuclear bomb—years? He doesn’t say how long we should do this—we invade. Why is invasion acceptable only after the "street" is sufficiently worked up over our lengthy bombing campaign and when Saddam is better prepared to fight us? Oh, and Saddam would never up the ante and just take the inspectors hostage, arguing they are the ones essentially calling in air strikes.

He concludes: "Unless there is prompt discussion and evaluation of alternative strategies, Iraq's noncompliance by Dec. 8 could trigger invasion and occupation. It would be foolhardy to move so precipitately before trying an approach that could well bring about disarmament in a quicker and more acceptable way."

All I can say to this is that eleven years of letting Saddam get away with murder and obstruction is not moving "precipitately." If he thinks eleven years plus the years in the future he is presumably willing to try, how on earth can he claim this is quicker? As for acceptable, can’t he see that prolonged low-level conflict that never wins inflames Islamist enemies and makes them believe we aren’t serious about fighting? I’d rather spend years trying to mold a friendly, rule-of-law Iraq (democracy may come in time) than spend years bombing a hostile Iraq led by a nutcase who will die happy if he can kill 100,000 of us in one blow. Amazingly, even his best-case outcome leaves a murderous dictator in place, just one without nukes, bugs, and chemicals. That is just fine, apparently. That is just amazing. And he and his ilk have the moral high ground? Even more amazing.

Truly, one would expect such folly from some "peace" group. Even accounting for a former Air Force gentleman’s misplaced faith in bombing, the rest of his article is just a plan for drawn out failure. It’s amazingly ridiculous, in fact.

Invade Iraq. Pull the Band-Aid off fast, that’s my opinion.