The Wall Street Journal REVIEW & OUTLOOK The 12-Year War The costs of "containing" Saddam include the rise of Osama bin Laden. Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Amid the fog of diplomacy these past few months, it has been easy to lose sight of American purposes in Iraq. But as President Bush reminded us last night, the imminent war to liberate the world from Saddam Hussein is both just and necessary. The fighting that will soon commence is not in fact the start of this war. It is the beginning of the end of a war that began when Saddam invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. The first President Bush rallied the world to roll that invasion back but failed to seize the moment to gain a permanent victory. The Iraq war has continued ever since, with Saddam's agents attempting to assassinate the elder Mr. Bush and shoot down U.S. pilots. In that sense this war is above all about American self-defense. Saddam may lack the means to invade the U.S., but we learned on September 11 that enemies can strike our homeland in other ways. With revenge as a motive, horrifying weapons as a means and terrorists willing to serve as his opportunity, Saddam poses a clear and present danger to Americans. We cannot be sure that he has not already hit us. The opponents of disarming Saddam have sneered even at the possibility of a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, but that is not the kind of linkage either side would advertise. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has harbored al Qaeda members, among other curious facts detailed by Laurie Mylroie. Mr. Bush has declared a "war on terror" and Saddam's Iraq is terrorism with an address. We know that if nothing else Saddam and al Qaeda share the common goal of punishing the U.S. and driving us from the Mideast. In his famous 1998 fatwa endorsing the murder of Americans, "civilian and military alike," Osama bin Laden mentioned two main complaints: First, that U.S. troops were deployed on the Islamic holy land of Arabia, and second that U.S. planes continued to bomb Iraq while enforcing the U.N.'s no-fly zones. Osama's jihad--and therefore September 11 itself--is in other words one direct consequence of the past 12 years of U.S. "containment" of Saddam. Without his continuing threat, American troops would not need to be stationed in Saudi Arabia and U.S. fighters would not still patrol the skies over Iraq. While fretting about the costs of going to Baghdad, those who favor a policy of sanctions and diplomacy have never been honest about the real costs of containment. Yes, it would be nice if President Bush now led the same global alliance that his father enjoyed in 1991. But he made every attempt to enlist that support in the U.N., only to run up against French and Russian intransigence that was beyond any persuasion. The failure to secure Turkish support is a bigger problem and was a misstep. Why Secretary of State Powell never traveled to Ankara remains a mystery. But in the end Mr. Bush will lead a coalition that is large enough to do the job. It includes Tony Blair's Britain, Spain, Italy, nearly all of the newly free states of Eastern Europe and Australia. Now that they believe Saddam's days are finally numbered, Iraq's neighbors are also lining up on America's side. Even the Saudis are allowing U.S. base rights after months of fence-sitting. These countries understand that America is the only protector the world now has against monsters like Saddam. The U.N. cannot defend them in a crisis, and the French will gladly sell the ammunition to the tyrant who shoots them. As in Kosovo and Somalia and Afghanistan, if the U.S. fails to lead an effort against scourges or dictators, their tyranny will continue. The end of the 12-year Iraq war could produce other, longer-term benefits beyond security. One is that the forces of Islamic extremism will have suffered another blow, emboldening more moderate forces to speak against them. Another is the opportunity to rebuild a self-governing Iraq that is a lesson to the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. The mullahs of Iran, already ruling precariously, may well face a more powerful public uprising. The Saudis may conclude that they no longer need to wink at the bin Ladens of their society to stay in power. In the best case, the Arab world will begin to accept political pluralism and enter the 21st century, or at least the 20th. Of course there are costs and dangers to removing Saddam now. The law of unintended consequences hasn't been repealed, no war ever goes precisely as planned, and some Americans and civilians will die. The justification for those deaths is that they will save more lives in the long run. Saddam's agents will no doubt unleash whatever havoc they can, perhaps even in America itself, but that should only underscore that sooner or later they would have done so anyway. The largest risk is an imponderable: whether Americans can generate the political consensus to sustain involvement in Iraq. Toppling Saddam is a long-term undertaking, as the stories now leaking about the Administration's plans reveal. With the exception of post-World War II, the U.S. has never been good at nation-building. At least we seem to be learning from early mistakes in Afghanistan, suggesting that we may do better in Iraq. The polls show that most Americans understand the coming burden and still favor war; after 9/11 they realize the dangers of ignoring foreign threats. About U.S. elites there are greater doubts. Our liberal pundits and politicians are fickle interventionists; many of them signed on early to topple Saddam but have lately been offering caveats and cavils as D-Day approaches. Will they run for moral cover if the going gets tough, as they did in Vietnam? About one thing we have no doubt: the courage of the Americans who will fight in our defense. We trust that their generals will be as daring, and their President as determined, as American soldiers will be in pursuing victory.
