The true Article about the War

This weekend's combined-arms drive- by shooting in downtown Baghdad demonstrated what's been clear almost from the outset:

The war is won.

This phase of the war, that is.

There may be fierce fighting ahead.

The danger to Coalition troops from isolated terror attacks is real.

And the mop-up may take some time.

But as a conventional military proposition, the war to dispossess Saddam Hussein has been stunningly successful.

Yesterday, U.S. aircraft were landing at Baghdad International Airport.

The city itself was surrounded, with all its major routes controlled by U.S. soldiers and Marines.

Southern Iraq was under the control of U.S. and British troops - everything worth controlling, that is.

In the north, Kurdish fighters and Coalition special operations forces have established firm control.

Ask not for whom the clock ticks, Saddam - it ticks for . . . well, that's clear enough.

Certainly, there are lessons to be learned from the war to date.

The most important is this: George W. Bush means what he says.

Saddam Hussein was given any number of opportunities to resolve the current crisis peaceably.

He could have disarmed.

He refused.

Thus his regime represented a clear and present danger to America's security. Just how big a danger will become clear as U.S. intelligence officers sift through the remains of the Saddam regime.

But this war has been about more than Saddam.

There were many legitimate reasons for ousting him; among them was this: to make a lesson of him.

In order to ensure America's safety from terrorists and other enemies, Washington had to assert itself in a region that has been increasingly hostile to America.

Washington did just that.

Indeed, what has occurred- indeed, what continues to occur - is a projection of military and political power on a scale unprecedented in human history.

Those who think the lesson has been lost on the perfidious princelings inhabiting the region are probably wrong.

And it is with that in mind that Washington must now proceed to craft its plans not just for rebuilding Iraq and its institutions - but, indeed, for reshaping the politics and policies the Middle East.

Again, the threat from Saddam Hussein was cause enough for action: He pursued weapons of mass destruction, and consorted with terrorists.

And his record of belligerency - invading two neighboring countries, gassing and torturing enemies foreign and domestic, flouting international laws and sanctions - made him an undeniable threat to the peace.

And, by projection, to America.

To allow such a threat to go unaddressed would have been more than irresponsible: Ultimately, it would have been suicidal.

Saddam's departure, and its circumstances, will have other pluses:

* Iraq's 24 million inhabitants will be freed. A functioning democracy might be established - the first ever in an Arab country.

* Iraq's oil reserves will be developed on behalf of its people, providing billions of dollars in income - and boosting the world's economy at the same time.

* The victory sends a critical message to the world: In accordance with its new strategic doctrine of pre-emption, the United States will confront its enemies before they are able to inflict damage. Best not to even think of messing with the United States.

* America and its like-minded allies are free to establish a presence in the region - a staging site for the projection of power in defense of vital interests.

Action can be aimed at terror-sponsoring regimes. Indeed, even at terror-tolerating regimes. Not necessarily military action - but not necessarily not military action, either.

In that respect, every bomb blast in Baghdad reverberated in Damascus and Amman, in Tehran and Cairo - and in Riyadh.

The echoes were heard in the capitals of Europe, as well.

And at the United Nations.

A nation wielding power unparalleled in history has emerged from this conflict; America's relationship to the rest of the world will never, ever be the same.

For better or for worse.

Meanwhile, what of France, Germany and Russia?

They resisted the eviction of Saddam because it would mean the loss of commercial advantage.

Each had done business with Saddam in the past, hoped to continue doing so - and feared having the details of its relationships made public.

Now they have begun to lobby hard for a piece of the postwar action - demanding that the United Nations, not the United States, supervise reconstruction.

And the insufferably pompous U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who also did his best to keep Saddam in power, ratifies these demands.

Well, to hell with all of them.

They get nothing - unless it is to America's advantage that they do.

Which is to say, unless they decide that it is in their interests, as well, to ensure that the threat to world peace now residing in the Middle East be confronted and neutralized.

Indeed, defeated.

Whether Washington itself chooses to proceed in that direction straight away isn't as important as the fact that it is can do so whenever it is deemed necessary.

Today, by force of arms, America has won a presence in a region long hostile to the West - and a breeding ground for terrorists.

With the war all but won, it is imperative that Bush not squander the precious opportunity in the Middle East.

That doesn't mean President Bush must move quickly (and blindly) on the Israel-Arab front.

In fact, it might mean just the opposite.

"We must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror," Bush told West Point's graduating class last year.

Check off Afghanistan and, now, Iraq.

Some nations "oppose terror, but tolerate the hatred that leads to terror," he added, "and that must change. We will send diplomats where they are needed, and we will send you, our soldiers, where you're needed."

Could he have had Saudi Arabia, and maybe Egypt or Syria, in mind?

He's not telling.

But you can bet that the Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians are wondering.

Worrying.

As well they should.

Show all stories by   Author:  61941 ( Click here )