In Israel, a new five month scholarship program being offered to young aspiring athletes – one of them could be you.
As we said here last week, the Bush Administration seems to be making its case for a Phase II military effort against Iraq. Indeed, at a Rose Garden ceremony this past Monday for two recently released aid workers in Afghanistan who had been held captive by the Taliban, President Bush was asked what message he had for Iraq. He said as follows:
Well, my message is that if you harbor a terrorist, you're a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you develop weapons of mass destruction that you want to [use to] terrorize the world, you'll be held accountable.
Plainly, the President continues to recognize that September 11 marked a dramatic transformation in world affairs. The horrific events that occurred on that day underscored that the challenges our Nation and the Western world face are very different than those we had confronted in the past. For the first time, we came face to face with the reality that terrorist cells can inflict the kind of catastrophic damage that was thought to lie only in the province of governments. No longer could we think that the resources to inflict mass destruction could only be possessed by countries. In World War II, we settled the problems of Germany and Japan and since World War II, we proved more than able to contain the likes of the Soviet Union/Russia and China. Now we must address miscreants with enough funds to accumulate biological and chemical ? and perhaps, even nuclear weapons ? hiding in caves or operating clandestinely.
So, viewing the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as requiring the elimination of the direct perpetrators is ludicrous. There is a network out there across the globe that has figured out how to penetrate our defenses. And it is a network that cannot function without the hospitality and support of state sponsors. As the President has said, these states must voluntarily “cough the terrorists up” or be forced to do so. Afghanistan was targeted since it harbored Osama bin Laden and headquarters of the Al Qaida. Similarly, as a known producer of these weapons and as a notorious patron of terrorists, Iraq is an obvious target.
But there are some who are counseling against any military action against Iraq. And their reasons show that they are oblivious to the real significance of Sept. 11. An editorial in the November 27th issue of the New York Times, “The Wrong Time To Fight Iraq,” is the clearest statement to date of this thinking:
…The Bush Administration would make a serious mistake by moving to wage war in Iraq.
One reason is that America's mission in Afghanistan is far from accomplished. Osama bin Laden and many top aides remain at large, Taliban fighters still hold out in the countryside and a few urban redoubts, and the creation of a stable post-Taliban government has barely begun. Until these basic objectives are achieved, Afghanistan will remain a potential base for international terrorism.
Finishing the job in Afghanistan requires holding together the international coalition Washington has skillfully assembled. War in Iraq at this juncture would almost certainly shatter that coalition. While some Arab leaders have no love for Mr. Hussein, public opinion in the Arab world would not allow them to support American military action against him, at least in the absence of clear evidence linking Baghdad to the events of Sept. 11 or subsequent bioterrorism….
War in Iraq would also undermine whatever possibility now exists for damping violence between Israelis and Palestinians and restarting efforts toward a lasting peace. Progress in the new peace initiative announced by Secretary of State Colin Powell last week might make it easier to ratchet up the pressure on Baghdad at a later date. Moving against Iraq now would hobble America's power as a Mideast peacemaker.
Diplomacy aside, the military challenges of war in Iraq are far more formidable than anything yet seen in Afghanistan. Mr. Hussein can count on the loyalty of a large army, equipped with more modern and lethal weapons than the Taliban ever had…. In another crucial difference, the United States would be operating without any effective local allies like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan….
Without ground fighters, American air power cannot prevail. The only military option with any realistic promise of success would be sending in an overwhelmingly large American ground force…. Unlike the situation prior to the Persian Gulf war, Washington could not count on the use of staging bases in Saudi Arabia….
What Washington should do now is intensify its efforts to build up a more serious internal Iraqi opposition…. Meanwhile, Washington should put maximum diplomatic and military pressure on Baghdad. It can use its improved ties with Russia to enact more sustainable United Nations economic sanctions and to press for an early resumption of international weapons inspections….
Three months ago, these sort of concerns might have resonated, although we are not sure that they should have even then. But not after Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein has spent years thwarting inspections in order to shield his biological and chemical weapons manufacturing. And Iraq has long been on the United States list of state sponsors of terror. We now have the momentum and the national will to do what has to be done. To be sure, there will be difficulties along the way. But their anticipation should not be allowed to stop us from doing what has to be done. We can deal with challenges as they arise.
We dare not lose sight of the fact that if we do not thoroughly address terrorists cells around the world as the cancer-like predators they are, the bin Ladens will be able to do what the Nazis, Japanese warlords and Communists were unable to accomplish.
About the Author:
You must log in to post a comment.
The Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam.
Palestinian youths from Hebron, though, who met with Israelis near Bethlehem to share their problems and insights have been forced to issue a statement distancing themselves from the meeting.
Benghazi isn’t likely to keep Hillary out of the Democratic field in 2016, but after 2008, she is justifiably paranoid.
Many of my fellow college students are quick to voice their acceptance of their LGBT friends, but they turn up their noses and frown slightly when they speak of a Hasid.
The growing revelations that the Obama State Department watered down public statements on the attack in order to cleanse them of any mention of al Qaeda and terrorism is a travesty.
We must confront Islamist groups with what Prime Minister David Cameron referred to as “muscular liberalism.”
Al-Qaradawi’s visit and statements also serve as a reminder that the Israeli-Arab conflict is centered, more than ever, around religion.
Everyone who reads newspapers should know at least one thing. Threats to annihilate Israel have always been unremarkable. Almost never, it seems, have Israel’s existential enemies sought any reason for concealment.
Mark Treyger, a candidate for city council in New York City’s 47th council district, met recently with the editorial board of The Jewish Press at the newspaper’s Boro Park office.
Israel’s government did not want to liberate Jerusalem. Or to be more specific, the Labor and National Religious Party ministers did not want to liberate Jerusalem. “Who needs that whole Vatican?” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained at the time.
Last Friday, the Western Wall underwent an unwelcome transformation from sacred site to media circus as the group known as the Women of the Wall sought to hold a decidedly non-traditional prayer service.
Two recent revelations have raised serious questions about the kind of government President Obama is running.
Readers of my monthly Baseball Insider column may have noticed its absence last week (the column appears in the second issue of every month). The reason for that is I have something more serious and personal to share with you, something that didn’t seem appropriate for a baseball column.
Two recent revelations have raised serious questions about the kind of government President Obama is running.
We were dismayed by the announcement last week from Google that it was changing the name “Palestinian Territories” to “Palestine” across its products. In explaining the action, a Google spokesman said that “We consult a number of sources and authorities when naming countries…. In this case, we are following the lead of the UN, ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), ISO (International Organization for Standardization) and other international organizations.”
It seems clear that there is a lot more to the current developments regarding Syria than Israel’s bombing some sites there, though staunching the flow of Iranian weapons to Hizbullah through Syria is plainly a significant objective.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent embrace of the Arab Peace Initiative is, to say the least, unnerving. Certainly the response of Arab leaders to his action reflects the dangers for Israel inherent in the plan. President Obama seems to be preoccupied these days with Syria and Iran as well as serious domestic issues and is largely leaving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Mr. Kerry. But the secretary of state seems poised to roil things up without any prospect of real progress.
Syria’s civil war is fast becoming one of the Obama administration’s greatest foreign policy challenges, for the moment even surpassing Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry in its urgency. Together, both issues have effectively derailed the president’s long-range intention to focus on Asia and the emerging economic and military developments in China and other nations in the so-called Asian Pivot.
The investigation into the Boston bombings is still in its early stages but what seems to be emerging is that the presumed perpetrators were not directly linked to any foreign terrorist infrastructure. Rather, they were individual Americans radicalized by jihadist teachings and guided in their weapons-making by jihadist websites.
During the run-up to the confirmations of Secretary of State Kerry and Secretary of Defense Hagel, we and others forcefully challenged the latter over statements he had made about Iran and Israel, and were more favorably inclined toward the former.
This week Jews around the world celebrated Yom Ha’Atzmaut, Israel Independence Day. Sixty-five years ago on the day before the British mandate over Palestine was set to expire, the Jewish People’s Council, comprised of the political leadership of the Jewish residents of Palestine, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/iraq-redux/2001/12/28/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.