Delay Can Be Dangerous
By John McCain
Senator from Arizona and a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Iraq and al-Qaeda present the United States with enemies on multiple fronts. In World War II, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war -- against them and against the Nazis, who had not attacked our homeland. We did not have the luxury of fighting one enemy at a time.
Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaeda is a grave threat. Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaeda's network. Does anyone really want to vouch for Saddam, a pathological risk-taker with a history of violent aggression and an enormous stockpile of the world's worst weapons, when terrorists could help him attack us without fingerprints?
There is no link between the current terror alert and the prospect of war with Iraq. We were not contemplating war in 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001, when we suffered terror attacks at home and abroad. And if the terrorists attack us because of our plans in Iraq, isn't that proof that Iraq and the terrorists are two faces of the same danger?
War is horrible. But the past century and 9/11 have taught us that there are things worse than war: accommodating international criminals implacably hostile to our interests and values. Failing to act to prevent another attack could make one inevitable. Standing by while an odious regime with a history of support for terrorism and hostility to America develops weapons whose use by terrorists could kill millions of Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication.
Who would not have attacked al-Qaeda before 9/11 had we known their plans? Who would not have heeded British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's call to stand up to Adolf Hitler when Nazi Germany was still weak and millions of lives could have been saved by acting first?
It is in the nature of democracies to be patient. But as history has shown, they can delay to their peril. Placing faith in containing Saddam today recalls Churchill's admonition in the 1930s about a collective defense that lacked teeth or will. As Churchill said of the League of Nations' failure to respond to Italian aggression in Abyssinia, there is not much collective security in a flock of sheep on the way to the butcher.
Saddam is like a serial criminal who has stockpiled illegal weapons and refused to surrender them. He has robbed neighbors' homes and murdered his own family. If the police responded the way the United Nations has responded to Saddam, our cities would be overrun with crime. None of us would be safe. There are other criminals, such as Osama bin Laden, and we are hunting them down. Nations around the world have joined our efforts.
Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all.
By John McCain
Senator from Arizona and a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Iraq and al-Qaeda present the United States with enemies on multiple fronts. In World War II, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we went to war -- against them and against the Nazis, who had not attacked our homeland. We did not have the luxury of fighting one enemy at a time.
Sept. 11, 2001 showed that al-Qaeda is a grave threat. Saddam Hussein has the ability to make a far worse day of infamy by turning Iraq into a weapons assembly line for al-Qaeda's network. Does anyone really want to vouch for Saddam, a pathological risk-taker with a history of violent aggression and an enormous stockpile of the world's worst weapons, when terrorists could help him attack us without fingerprints?
There is no link between the current terror alert and the prospect of war with Iraq. We were not contemplating war in 1993, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001, when we suffered terror attacks at home and abroad. And if the terrorists attack us because of our plans in Iraq, isn't that proof that Iraq and the terrorists are two faces of the same danger?
War is horrible. But the past century and 9/11 have taught us that there are things worse than war: accommodating international criminals implacably hostile to our interests and values. Failing to act to prevent another attack could make one inevitable. Standing by while an odious regime with a history of support for terrorism and hostility to America develops weapons whose use by terrorists could kill millions of Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication.
Who would not have attacked al-Qaeda before 9/11 had we known their plans? Who would not have heeded British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's call to stand up to Adolf Hitler when Nazi Germany was still weak and millions of lives could have been saved by acting first?
It is in the nature of democracies to be patient. But as history has shown, they can delay to their peril. Placing faith in containing Saddam today recalls Churchill's admonition in the 1930s about a collective defense that lacked teeth or will. As Churchill said of the League of Nations' failure to respond to Italian aggression in Abyssinia, there is not much collective security in a flock of sheep on the way to the butcher.
Saddam is like a serial criminal who has stockpiled illegal weapons and refused to surrender them. He has robbed neighbors' homes and murdered his own family. If the police responded the way the United Nations has responded to Saddam, our cities would be overrun with crime. None of us would be safe. There are other criminals, such as Osama bin Laden, and we are hunting them down. Nations around the world have joined our efforts.
Saddam is an international felon who has repeatedly violated the terms of his parole and is planning further crimes with his terrorist accomplices. He must be brought to justice once and for all.
