Other Columns by Doug Patton
Doug Patton Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Freedom vs. Fanaticism: Ridding the World of Saddam
By Doug Patton
August 26, 2002

"Every generation must summon the courage to disregard the timid counsel of those who would mortgage our security to the false promises of wishful thinking and appeasement."
-- House Majority Whip Tom DeLay

On June 7, 1981, sixteen Israeli military jets streaked across the sky toward Iraq, zeroed in on the Osirak nuclear research facility near Baghdad and utterly destroyed it.

Predictably, the U.N. Security Council issued a resolution "strongly" condemning Israel for the attack. But the Reagan Administration made it clear that the United States would veto any article that called for sanctions against Israel.

As President Reagan said at the time, "Israel might have sincerely believed it was a defensive move. It is difficult for me to envision Israel as being a threat to its neighbors."

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin knew that he and other Israeli leaders would be condemned by the so-called "world community" for an attack on a nation 600 miles from Israeli borders. But the long-stated policy of Saddam Hussein and most of the rest of the Arab world was to destroy the tiny Jewish state and its citizens. The Israelis knew that if Saddam had nuclear power, a nuclear weapon would not be far behind. They also knew that if Saddam had a nuclear weapon, he probably would not hesitate to use it - on Israel.

They decided not to take the risk. They didn't wring their hands and fret about what the rest of the world might think. They didn't worry about retaliation. Having lived for decades in the shadow of annihilation, the Israelis, militarily, were ready for anything - and the Arab world knew it.

For four decades after the Soviets developed a nuclear arsenal, the United States held them at bay with a policy of assured mutual annihilation. But what does one do with a dictator who harbors no such fears, a madman who could accept the destruction of his own nation and its people as the price of obliterating his enemies? What does the civilized world do with such a despot - especially in the shadowy world of 21st Century terrorism, where the enemy does not wear a uniform or fight under the flag of any one country?

For a variety of reasons - political cowardice, moral bankruptcy, military impotence - the rest of the world has only one answer to that question: appeasement. Most of Europe is ruled by governments that would make Neville Chamberlain proud. Only the United States has the moral authority and the military firepower to stop this modern-day Hitler before he starts World War III. As Tom DeLay has said, "We lead the forces of good in the battle between freedom and fanaticism."

Do we have the will to fight such a war, especially if we have to fight it alone? Is the specter of body bags returning from Southeast Asia still too vivid a memory? In the summer of 1968, my best friend came home in one, dead at age 20, so it haunts me, too.

But I know I speak for many Vietnam-era veterans when I say that many of us who served in uniform during the only war America ever lost will never forgive the leaders of this nation for their refusal to muster the will to win a war they said they were willing to fight. How much more will the next generation of Americans despise today's leaders if they fail to act while there is still time.

The choice seems clear: We can liberate Iraq as soon as possible, eradicating Saddam Hussein in the process. Or we can simply wait until that day that is surely coming, when a young Arab with a Saudi visa and a death wish walks into the Sears Tower with an Iraqi-made nuclear device strapped to his chest.