Home  |   Jihad Watch  |   Horowitz  |   Archive  |   Columnists  |     DHFC  |  Store  |   Contact  |   Links  |   Search Tuesday, January 23, 2018
FrontPageMag Article
Write Comment View Comments Printable Article Email Article
Font:
The Next Resolution Must Be the Last By: Bobby Eberle
GOPUSA.com | Thursday, February 13, 2003


When President Bush spoke from the Roosevelt Room of the White House on February 6, and gave the left yet another example of what they say they want, the shouts from the anti-war movement still rang out with the same regularity and absurdity as before. By opening the door for more debate and negotiations within the U.N., the administration may be buying more time to assemble the war plan, but it does little to entice reluctant nations and only gives Saddam Hussein more time to move, conceal, or sell his weapons. 

Near the end of Bush's remarks on February 6, the president stated that the United States would "welcome and support a new resolution which makes clear that the Security Council stands behind its previous demands." A new resolution? Yet another U.N. resolution? Wasn't that the whole point behind resolution 1441? Wasn't it designed to be the final opportunity for Saddam to disarm? Yes, it was. But, once again, in an effort to appease those on the left, not just in this country, but around the world, Bush gave them something they should want, but in reality, it will not earn him any favors. 

Resolution 1441 needs no reinforcement. Its message is clear. Besides, there's not a resolution over the past twelve years dealing with Iraq that doesn't "recall" and "reaffirm" previous resolutions. What comes next? A resolution that reaffirms the resolution reaffirming 1441? My head is spinning. 

The only way this new resolution can distinguish itself from the countless others passed against Iraq over the last twelve years is for it to be the last resolution. This new resolution must contain those two critical elements of finality that came out of the U.N. during the Gulf War: the authorization of the use of force and a deadline for compliance.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August, 1990, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 660 on August 2 condemning Iraq's invasion and ordering its withdrawal. Four days later, resolution 661 was passed which imposed an embargo on goods entering or leaving Iraq. Resolution 661 also called for the freezing of financial assets and the prohibition of financial transactions with Iraqi
government. 

Several months passed, and Iraq maintained its occupation of Kuwait and thumbed its nose at the impotent U.N. resolutions. Then, at the end of November 1990, the U.N. Security Council passed resolution 678 which authorized the use of force against Iraq if Saddam Hussein did not order his troops to leave Kuwait by January 15, 1991. Finally... a resolution with purpose -- a resolution which "allowed" the U.S. to act. Force authorization and a deadline for compliance were the essential ingredients in the recipe for Saddam's expulsion from Kuwait. 

Fast forward to 2003, and Iraq is even more dangerous than before. With al-Qaeda's lifeline to supplies, weapons, and training severely crippled by the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must sparkle like lollipops in the eyes of a child. If Saddam Hussein is not disarmed, those weapons will, without a doubt, end up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. The last thing America should be doing is stringing this out even longer.

The evidence is there. Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council was thorough, compelling, and convincing. The United States already has a "coalition of the willing" ready to move forward and disarm Saddam Hussein. With each passing day, the threat grows more serious.

Weapons inspector Hans Blix will soon make another presentation to the U.N. It will come as no surprise when he reports some Iraqi cooperation, but does not report that Iraq has fully declared and disarmed its weapons of mass destruction. There will be just enough said for wavering members of the Security Council to ask for more time. Now, we'll be throwing into that mix additonal time for debate on another Iraq resolution.

I, for one, do not know what the next resolution will say. All I know is what it needs to say -- what it must say. It must authorize the use of force and it must set a deadline. Now is not the time for delay. Now is the time for action.


Bobby Eberle is President and CEO of GOPUSA (www.GOPUSA.com), a news, information, and commentary company based in Houston, TX. He holds a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Rice University.


We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by Disqus




Home | Blog | Horowitz | Archives | Columnists | Search | Store | Links | CSPC | Contact | Advertise with Us | Privacy Policy

Copyright©2007 FrontPageMagazine.com