The American people have been given no concrete evidence that Saddam has done anything but torture and kill the Iraqi people, since his attack against Kuwait. This in itself is bad, but there are worse in the world. And, America has never waged an aggressive war, as it is planning to do against Saddam. In fact, are not the terrorists considered evil because they attacked without provocation? Was not Japan vilified for attacking Pearl Harbor without provocation? Why won't the same logic apply to the United States if and when it attacks Iraq?
Answer, it will. But, why is George W. intent on attacking Iraq. By the way, W's is talking about finding diplomatic solutions and using every option available to "solve" an internal Iraqi problem at the same time war preparations are in full swing. See the August 6 New York Times story if you don't believe me.
At first, I thought W picked Saddam for the second enemy of the War With Terror because Saddam had already been vilified when daddy Bush attacked him in the Gulf War. Evil guys are easier to prop up as villains of the day. Indeed, Saddam's reputation may be a factor in choosing Saddam as the next enemy. However, I do not believe it to be the most significant factor.
Next, I thought maybe W picked Saddam to finish his father's war. But, then I remembered that daddy Bush had told Saddam a week before Saddam's brutal invasion of Kuwait that the United States would not defend Kuwait if Iraq attacked it. Then, I remembered hearing daddy Bush say, in a post presidential interview, that one of the main reasons he decided to wage the Gulf War was to build an international coalition to forge his New World Order. If you'll remember, think- tanks and diplomats were looking for a new global paradigm to explain foreign affairs since the Cold War ended. Daddy Bush suggested the New World Order. The Gulf War was to be the new government's first campaign or the war which made the world realize it was time for a massive restructuring of international relations.
This got me thinking, the only admirable thing Saddam has done has been to resist global government. To be sure, he has done it in an attempt to better tyrannize the Iraqi people, but he has been a thorn in the side of those who want global governance.
This makes him a perfect enemy for the War With Terror. The War With Terror is an international struggle against political dissent. See Defining Victory in the New War.
Individuals or groups no matter where they exist, if they threaten the current existence of any nation state waging the War With Terror, are the enemy of every Terror Warrior. The War With Terror has allowed greater intrusions into the individual freedoms of the freest country in the world, bringing its record on civil liberties more in line with that of Europe and China. It has brought a new open cooperation between governments in a mutual effort to eradicate dissidents from within every national border.
If only Saddam would get in line, maybe he could keep his control over Iraq. Remember hillbilly diplomacy, "You're either ‘wit us or again' us"? But, since Saddam is willing to send Iraqi men to die to protect his power, America must be prepared for the consequences of being the aggressor against another nation. America will not have the moral high ground to condemn any other nation for attacking any other for any contrived disagreement. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, et al can attack Israel with the same moral authority America will attack Iraq with. China can attack Taiwan with that same moral authority.
Far from bringing global governance, this attempt by W. to push the world into his daddy's New World Order could very well lead to the final world war.