In the most surprising development of the 21st century, Saddam Hussein is winning the PR battle against George Bush. On paper, it appears obvious that George Bush would win a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein. Saddam has repeatedly mocked the United Nations. He has invaded neighboring countries and destroyed their oil fields. Even worse, he has killed, tortured and starved the people of his own nation. George Bush, on the other hand, is the leader of one of the greatest democracies in the world. He also refrains from torturing political enemies and even allows free elections.
Yet, not only is Saddam more popular than George Bush, he is succeeding remarkably where Osama Bin Laden failed. Bin Laden attempted to terrorize the American people and wreck our economy. He tried, and failed, to intimidate the United States into changing its policy in the Middle East. Instead, the American people stood united, while U.S. forces destroyed Al Qaeda's bases. Countries around the world pledged their support to the United States, and Jacques Chirac stated that 'we are all Americans.'
In one short year, Saddam has accomplished several of Bin Laden's goals. The U.S. economy continues to suffer, partially because of the uncertainty of war. Domestically, Americans are divided on the need to forcefully remove Saddam. Internationally, masses of people protest U.S. 'aggression,' and heads of state denounce U.S. policy. Saddam has driven a wedge between America and some of our closest allies. He threatens to isolate the United States and destroy the credibility of the United Nations. Bin Laden could never dream of inflicting this much damage on the United States or Western interests.
Bush, however, has a chance to overcome these temporary setbacks. Bush is right to think that war with Iraq is justified. Saddam's crimes against humanity would likely merit his removal, regardless of his possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The Bush administration needs to patiently argue its case. The world will eventually support America, as long as they listen to the logic of our reasons and not the arrogance behind the threat to act unilaterally. If we rush into war, the world will see America as a bully; Bush must not let his impatience overshadow the legitimate reasons that we have for removing Saddam.
Bush has nothing to lose if he waits for an international consensus. Saddam is a threat, but he is not an imminent threat. Saddam does not have the capability to attack America and poses only a minimal threat to Israel. He is likely deceiving weapons inspectors, but it is not likely that he is continuing production of WMD. Finally, it is doubtful that Saddam will sell any chemical or biological weapons to terrorists, who in turn might use such weapons against the United States. Saddam Hussein, a secular dictator, is not well liked among Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam is more concerned about staying in power than he is about terrorizing American civilians. Thus, although we do need to remove Saddam from power, it makes little difference whether it happens now or in six months.
Since Saddam is not an imminent threat, we can wait for our allies to support a war. We must listen to our allies' concerns, even if we think that they are unfounded. If we go to war now, we will most certainly disarm Saddam, but we will suffer the long-term consequences of fractured alliances. A fragmented world without Saddam Hussein is far scarier than a united world confronting an entrenched Saddam Hussein. In our quest to disarm Saddam, we cannot underestimate the importance of retaining our allies' support, especially in the looming crisis with North Korea. America will accomplish its goal of disarming Saddam. The only question is whether we will accomplish Bin Laden's in the process.
