Here we go with a new online column. With war in Iraq imminent, and a sense of profound impending change in the American air (dare I say sense of impending disaster, perhaps not entirely overseas?), the time is ripe for this new forum that I've been contemplating for a long time.
The one lesson from Vietnam that no one seems to have learned (and that seems very relevant as American forces slowly move into battle positions halfway around the world) is that not every war that needs to be fought can be won.
Don't get me wrong: there's nothing pleasant in the least about war, much less a war that involves retreat and defeat. But sometimes a stand must be made, a stand that might lead to short-term defeat of our armed forces but will more likely lead to long-term survival of the republic for which they fight. When South Vietnam fell in the spring of 1975 without American support, Communists and other enemies of freedom and democracy the world over felt emboldened and began to make inroads against American interests.
It's doubtful that South Vietnam could have survived much longer than it did, even with more American backing. But the United States could have made more of an effort to bloody the nose of its Communist opponents and make others think twice before attempting to subvert American allies.
This raises the question of American tolerance for blood spilled on foreign soil, or often more accurately, the lack thereof. All Americans are in this country because we (or our ancestors) wanted to leave something behind, that "something" often wars, conflicts, and the hunger and poverty that they engender. Americans, if given the choice, will remain above the world's frays, isolated and comfortable in our sprawling suburbs as we go about creating or buying the next "New New Thing."
It is this isolationist tendency in its citizens that makes America's ability to wage long and protracted foreign wars highly circumstantial. Attack Pearl Harbor or the World Trade Center, and Americans become willing to die by the tens of thousands to defend their way of life. Wage a guerilla war against an American-backed government of questionable legitimacy, or attempt to develop weapons of mass destruction that won't necessarily appear ninety miles from American shores, and the American tolerance for loss of life in the effort to stop you (especially loss captured on television) drops to nil.
That is why the Vietnam War should have been fought differently, because it could have been fought differently. The Vietnamization policy of the later years could have been applied sooner, and backed up with relatively small numbers of Special Forces in turn backed up by substantial American air power deployed from off-shore carriers and bases in the Philippines. Again, it is doubtful that South Vietnam could have survived in the long run, but American interests would have been bettered served by a permanent-yet-conservative commitment to its Southeast Asian ally. After defeating the French and tasting freedom for the first time in nearly a century, the Vietnamese were most likely unstoppable. Yet, when faced with the prospect of unending war and devastation visited upon their own homeland, would-be insurgents might have thought twice about starting subsequent uprisings against American-backed governments.
Back to Iraq. While the situation in that Southwest Asian nation is vastly different, the same principle holds true: the United States must stand up for its principles there in order to prevent assaults on its principles elsewhere. The principle in the Iraqi situation is that democracy and decency are requirements for membership in the nuclear club. Yes, there is a certain hypocrisy in this stance: not every nuclear power is a democracy, and not all are decent.
But hypocrisy notwithstanding, the world cannot tolerate a totalitarian power in possession of weapons of mass destruction. That the Soviet Union imploded without initiating a global conflict in a last-ditch effort to save itself is a miracle; that its implosion left many nuclear and biological weapons and their creators unaccounted for is a cause for concern. We cannot allow the same thing to happen in Iraq; we cannot allow the same thing to happen elsewhere. By invading Iraq, we drain one swamp and (hopefully) prevent others from filling.
North Korea is a case in point: while a limited military strike might still prove worth the enormous risks, an all-out attack on Pyongyang would only result in an East Asian conflagration that would leave Seoul a hole in the ground. This was not always the case: North Korea could have been attacked years ago, before it developed its first nuclear weapons.
Iraq too, should have been attacked years ago: it is highly ironic that Bill Clinton might very well have saved himself from impeachment had he authorized a full-fledged invasion of Iraq when that country evicted U.N. inspectors in 1998. We can only hope that, in the intervening five years, Iraqi chemical and biological weapons have not been dispersed to third parties willing to use them on American citizens.
A war needs to be waged by America right now, a war to prove that we will not allow dictators to obtain the means to impose their will on the rest of the world. This war can be won in Iraq: Iraq's military is weaker than it was twelve years ago, and America's military stronger. American tanks will roll north from Kuwait and south from Turkey to quickly converge on Baghdad. As the liberators advance, ordinary Iraqis will most likely welcome their arrival.
It will be in the streets of Baghdad that the final question will be answered: "but at what cost?" It will most likely be at that moment that Saddam Hussein will take a few pages from Adolf Hitler: as he sits holed up in his capital, surrounded by fanatical troops ready to fight to the death for him, he will order the destruction of his own nation. Chemical-tipped warheads and artillery shells will rain down on advancing American forces, slowing their advance at the very least. Biological weapons will be unleashed on fleeing refugees not innoculated against the germs that they will carry with them into Turkey and Iran.
If anthrax is among those germs, the losses will be devastating. If smallpox is included as well, the results will be like nothing seen in hundreds of years. It might be no coincidence that the Black Death that devastated Europe 650 years ago began its spread along roughly the same lines of longitude, by means of corpses thrown over the walls of the besieged city of Kaffa in the first known example of biological warfare. It is often said that Hussein would eventually infect his own people if he were to unleash biological weapons, and therefore wouldn't be so foolish. I say that he would have every reason to do that very thing if backed into a corner in his capital.
The world shall find out soon enough that Iraq has indeed been developing weapons of mass
destruction, possibly in very horrific ways. But Kim Jong Il (among others) might take notice of
an American victory, and decide that it is in his own best interest to change his ways. It is
better for America to fight now, and let the cards fall where they may, than wait to be dealt a
worse hand later in the game.