by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 7, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

hat the U.N. doesn't get is that the United States was savagely attacked on Sept. 11. It is the U.S.—not the U.N. or any other country—that is currently fighting its war on terrorism. No other country is under the same threat or has a greater stake in the war's outcome. When Bin Laden declared war on 9/11, the U.S. crossed the point of no return. Never again could the U.S. show the same vulnerability or lax security leading to another Sept. 11. Launching the new Cabinet-level department of Homeland Security, President Bush vowed that 9/11 wouldn't repeat itself. Some members of the U.N. Security Council still don't get that national security now drives U.S. foreign policy. "I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons," said Bush reminding the Security Council that there can be no compromise when it comes to rogue states possessing weapons of mass destruction.

      Since unanimously approving U.N. Resolution 1441 on Nov. 8, the Security Council accepted the unequivocal requirement that Iraq must disarm. Resolution 1441 clearly specified that Iraq had one last chance to disarm, declaring Dec. 12 all its proscribed munitions or face serious consequences. There was no provision in 1441 for Iraq to disarm in half-measures or engage inspectors in a game of cat-and-mouse. Divisions on the Council hinge not only on the methods of disarmament but the fundamental definition of "ally." France, Germany, Russia and China want to extend inspections, regardless of how it impacts U.S. national security. With terrorists planning more attacks, the White House doesn't have the same luxury as other countries not currently threatened by Islamic extremists. Though Britain wasn't attacked on Sept. 11, Prime Minister Tony Blair viewed Sept. 11 as an attack on London.

      On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented a powerful case to the U.N., proving Iraq was in "material breach" of 1441. He reminded allies that the U.S. wouldn't sit on its hands while Saddam stockpiled more weapons of mass destruction. Without full disarmament, Iraq represents an intolerable threat to U.S. interests—including its allies. "Peaceful disarmament is possible and there is a real alternative to war," said German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, arguing before the Security Council that he found it "incomprehensible" to opt for war when force would bring death and destruction to "innocent" people. Fischer can't calculate U.S. terrorism risks in a post 9/11-world. Unlike Britain, Germany and France have turned a blind eye on gathering dangers to U.S. national security faced with the increased odds of more terrorism. No foreign government can accurately weigh risks to U.S. national security.

      France has also showed a cavalier attitude with respect to the risk posed by Saddam Hussein to U.S. interests. "We cannot accept an ultimatum as long as the inspectors are reporting progress. That would mean war," said French Foreign Minister Dominique de Vellepin, forgetting massive casualties the U.S. sustained on Sept. 11. Paris would be singing a different tune had the Eiffel Tower been toppled by Islamic extremists. France's unwillingness to consider Baghdad's present danger belies a selfish foreign policy, concerned more about commercial interests than aiding a long-term ally. Surely France knows that Saddam's charade doesn't pass the mustard of U.N. Resolution 1441, demanding immediate, unequivocal and unconditional disarmament. U.S. allies must act like loyal friends, not school children bickering on the schoolyard. Inspections can't be allowed to upend U.S. national security.

      Grandstanding on the Security Council, France and Germany stoke anti-Americanism in non-aligned countries. Nowhere is this more evident than the "Islamic world," where brutal regimes deny most basic rights to struggling populations, especially women. Here, psychopaths like Bin Laden make their most seductive pitch, using Islam to recruit suicide bombers into a phony cult of liberation. Standing up to the U.S. panders to radical groups seeking to direct hatred away from brutal dictators to scapegoats like the United States. Much has been said about how current U.S. foreign policy provokes terrorism. In reality, taking down the Taliban, dismantling Al Qaeda, and now changing regimes in Iraq, reduces terrorism by eliminating command and control. When the Security Council takes another vote on Iraq's compliance, they must respond honestly and account for U.S. national security.

      U.S. allies forget who got attacked on Sept. 11. It's not up to the U.N. to set foreign policy or lecture the U.S. on what it must do to protect its citizens. Sept. 11 forever changed the national security landscape, leading to the most sweeping overhaul in U.S. policy—and bureaucracy—since the end of World War II. Europeans must do a better job of connecting the dots and accept that the U.S. cannot tolerate rogue regimes or terrorists possessing weapons of mass destruction. There's no margin for error and too much at stake after Sept. 11. With Bin Laden declaring war on the U.S.—not Europe—the White House can't wait passively for the next terrorist attack. "We will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change . . ." said Bush, serving notice that terrorists and outlaw regimes will pay a heavy price for attacking the U.S. With Bin Laden now on the ropes, Saddam is next in line.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.