Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Iraq: The Case For Invasion
By Mike Bayham
July 25, 2002

I am fairly confident that in a matter of several months, the United States is going to begin making noticeable preparations for an invasion of Iraq. The magnitude of such a military operation will have a greater level of involvement by our forces than the successful operation to remove the Taliban from Kabul.

The objectives of this military action will be significantly different from the American offensive during Desert Storm. The goals for Desert Storm were to liberate Kuwait and to hinder Saddam Hussein's ability to engage in acts of aggression against Iraq's neighbors. The United States achieved an impressive victory against what was then the world's fourth largest army, which was removed from the Arab emirate in short order.

Unfortunately, the United States did not encounter as much success in fulfilling the latter objective. Even though his hardened Republican Guard was wiped out with a minimum of American casualties, Hussein has not learned his lesson and has only grown bitterer.

Since the conflict, Hussein has been tied to a plot to assassinate former President Bush, bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel, and has utilized oppressive measures against his own people to maintain his hold on power. Obviously these are not the signs of rehabilitated statesman.

Prior to any large-scale military action in Iraq, President Bush will probably present to the nation evidence connecting Hussein with the 9-11 attacks on America. Such information should not come as a surprise to anyone since Israeli intelligence has been saying as much since last year.

Complicity with the terrorists that destroyed the Twin Towers and damaged the Pentagon is enough to merit an invasion, which was enough to initiate the Afghanistan operation. But even if it is determined that Hussein was more of a cheerleader than a head coach in 9-11, there are other arguments that can be made for military action that would remove him from power.

Contrary to the doubts and fears of political peaceniks, Desert Storm is going to be reenacted one way or the other. The difference is whether the battle is fought on our terms or the Iraqi dictator's for it is a matter of "when," not "if" Iraq attacks its neighbors. Hussein still maintains that Kuwait is Iraq's "nineteenth province," much like Communist China still covets Taiwan. Since he has about as many scruples as Hitler or Stalin, there is no agreement that will keep him from reinvading Kuwait or any other country he can seize.

Secondly, Iraq has been a haven for terrorists, something the Bush Administration has been stating since the war against terrorism began in earnest. Hussein has already been fingered as one of the financiers of the suicide bombers with the reason being, aside from his genuine motive to kill Jews, that turmoil in the other end of the Mideast will indefinitely delay any American invasion of Iraq.

Thirdly, Hussein's dreams of developing nuclear arms and his efforts to increase his stockpile of other weapons of mass destruction should not be taken lightly. Iraq has refused to comply with weapons inspections by the United Nations, implying that he is in possession of such weaponry. Hussein's damaged pride from the war has driven him to seek revenge on a grand scale with weapons that can inflict a high number of casualties.

Another incentive to remove Hussein from power is that Saddam Hussein has outlived his usefulness. Believe it or not, there was some strategic value in allowing Hussein to remain in power, even after Desert Storm.

Before Iraq was introduced to the American public in 1990, America's nemesis in the Mideast was the fundamentalist Islamic State of Iran. A little over twenty years ago, Muslim radicals took over the reigns of a country that was very pro-western...or at least its leader the Shah was. After the coup, Iran's new militantly anti-Western leaders engaged in a foreign policy that would make Syria blush, taking Americans hostage and by not too discreetly sponsoring terrorists.

Being a powerful country with intentions of expanding its influence elsewhere, Iran was considered a major threat by the United States. Because Hussein was not friendly with Iran, American leaders believed that Iraq could check Iranian intentions in the region, thus playing the two pariahs off of each other.

Since the Persian Gulf War, Iran has elected a more moderate government though the same zealots that were part of the fanatical government of Khomeini still have a large say in affairs. Regardless, Hussein's expendability has increased while his value of a bulwark has decreased. The only remaining value for Hussein now is to use his carcass for garden mulch.

Removal of Hussein from power is not going to happen through sanctions, which have consistently proven to be as menacing to dictators as a wet noodle. Furthermore, embargoes tend to hurt the masses more than the masters who still maintain a life of luxury while the people starve. UN resolutions will have about as much impact on Hussein as League of Nations motions had on Mussolini. There will be no voluntary trip to the exile paradises of Elba or St. Helena meaning Hussein will have to be dragged out of Iraq kicking and screaming, assuming he survives the invasion.

In order to remove the Iraqi threat to its neighbors by invasion and to America through supported terrorist actions, it is necessary to remove the regime running the country. It is time for "president for life" Hussein to have his term abruptly cut short via a "daisycutter" dropped out of a C-130 or through some other measure that will guarantee the end of his tenure as head of Iraq.