Christopher Ruddy
Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2002

While publicly President Bush insists that "no decision" has yet been made to attack Iraq, the Pentagon has already quietly sent nearly 100,000 troops into the Gulf region.

According to the World Tribune, a U.S. general visiting Israel has "told Israel that it will attack Iraq before the end of November."

Notwithstanding these war preparations, Bush’s top advisers are deeply divided over the wisdom of a frontal assault on Saddam Hussein and a full-fledged invasion of Iraq – with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy adviser Richard Perle leading the pro-invasion faction, and Secretary of State Colin Powell leading the anti-invasion faction.

There is no dispute within the administration – or throughout much of the world for that matter – that Saddam Hussein is an evil man and a dangerous man the world would be better off without.

Hussein achieved power and rules through Stalinist methods (Saddam has had a lifelong fascination for mass-murderer Stalin, and keeps a voluminous library about him), gladly killing even members of his own family when he feels his power is threatened.

Hussein has also had weapons of mass destruction – including chemical and biological weapons - which he has ruthlessly used against his enemies both inside and outside Iraq.

No one knows for sure if Saddam possesses nuclear weapons, since international inspections of his weapons ended in 1998 – thanks to Bill Clinton’s cave-in to U.N. pressure.

However, as Vice President Cheney says, "time is not on our side." Hussein’s own people would doubtless bless the U.S. for eliminating him, providing the destruction to their country and people was minimized in any assault.

Therein lies the dilemma. Hussein is so well protected and elusive (reportedly moving to a different location each night to sleep) that it is probably impossible to eliminate him for sure without doing significant damage to his country and people.

There is also the grave danger that any protracted or extremely destructive war would spark a global Muslim jihad against America – and some de facto Muslim nations, like Pakistan and probably Iran, have nuclear weapons.

An invasion of Iraq could also spark a worldwide conflagration. President Bush has made clear that Iraq is just first on the list of the "axis of evil" nations. Would Korea, Iran and others such as China, Cuba, Russia and other terror-sponsoring nations begin a covert or even public war against America?

Further, any all-out war on Iraq could be extremely costly in American lives, especially if Saddam is prepared to use weapons of mass destruction. There may be no repeat of the Gulf War in which Saddam’s forces were sitting ducks in the desert. Saddam has likely learned from his mistakes.

During the eight years of Bill Clinton, Saddam was also given plenty of time to build an infrastructure of agents in America. He was also allowed to sell billions of dollars in oil, money that has now given him the wherewithal to engage the U.S. on American soil, perhaps using horrible biological weapons, if we were to launch a full-scale invasion.

These and other concerns are undoubtedly responsible for the lack of international support for Gulf War II.

Even our staunchest international ally - Prime Minister Tony Blair of England – faces massive resistance within his own Labour Party, not to mention considerable protest from the Conservative Party, to any support of Gulf War II.

The way the Europeans view this is that Saddam is a target of the United States' vengeance for Sept. 11. Yet we have offered little evidence, if any, of Saddam’s involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. Europe sees many nations as being terrorist sponsors and others seeking to gain weapons of mass destruction, and consider a war simply targeting Iraq, or a series of wars against rogue states, as unreasonable.

In view of these concerns, the best course may lie between inaction and all-out war. Here’s my answer to this dilemma:

What Would Reagan Do?

A left-wing magazine recently made some snide remarks about NewsMax, noting that we are the heirs to the ideological legacy of Ronald Reagan. The publication suggested, tongue-in-cheek, that in the wake of 9-11, NewsMax would soon be offering bumper stickers asking "What Would Reagan Do?"

I personally take that as a compliment and a very good question. Ronald Reagan was one of the great leaders of the 20th century; he did more than any other single individual to end the Cold War and engineer America's greatest economic boom.

The bumper sticker question raises a legitimate one: How would the greatest president of modern times handle the new terrorist threat to America in general and the Iraq dilemma in particular?

None of us can know for sure what Reagan would do. But we can look at how he handled other crises – including the greatest threat to America and the West in the last century, communism – and reach some general conclusions.

Here are some general principles that could be culled from Reagan’s years as president:

1. Identify the problem clearly.

Reagan did that when he labeled communism "the Evil Empire," and Bush has done this by identifying the "Axis of Evil."

2. Hire the best people.

Reagan surrounded himself with people who were not so much concerned about glorifying themselves as they were about being good team players in a noble cause. Bush has a mixed record here.

Rumsfeld is great, but almost all of Bush’s top appointments are now, or have been, presidential aspirants. To Bush’s credit, he had the confidence to bring aboard strong-willed individuals, some with more experience than he. Still, one wonders how effective these people can be in implementing policy, as opposed to moving their own political stakes forward.

One thing Reagan did that Bush has not, was to clean house. Reagan understood how bad the Carter people had been, and he lost no time at cleaning house in almost every agency, especially those dealing with national security.

Reagan intuitively understood that personnel is policy, and that unless you have your own people in place, you can never be sure your vision will be implemented.

The Bush administration has been woefully slow in replacing top Clinton appointees and those they promoted in the bureaucracy. The most glaring is the continuance of CIA Director George Tenet. Would Reagan have kept Tenet, had he served under Jimmy Carter for several years, and was in charge during several intelligence catastrophes - including a disaster akin to Sept. 11? Answer: No Way!

In fact, we know that Reagan saw his CIA appointment as his most critical. For that post, he selected a brilliant choice: William J. Casey. Casey not only was a seasoned Washington veteran, he also had had a remarkable career in business and law. Most importantly, he had been the mastermind behind all of the U.S. spy operations against the Nazis during World War II.

Bush needs to follow in Reagan’s footsteps and find people of the Bill Casey mold to carry out his vision.

3. Strike decisively.

That doesn’t always mean all-out war, but just enough force to show them that you are serious and you have the ability to destroy them if necessary. Reagan did this in Grenada. Bush did it in Afghanistan.

4. Attack your enemy with stealth.

Reagan launched covert operations in Afghanistan, El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere. He once remarked to a friend of mine, just before becoming president, that he would "bring down the bear, encircling it with bees." CIA operatives were sent to Afghanistan to help the mujahideen, and a pipeline of help was opened to the Contra guerrillas fighting the communists in Nicaragua.

At the same time, Reagan followed Bill Casey’s advice and engaged the Soviets in an economic war. Using secret diplomacy, Reagan persuaded oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia to increase their production. The huge cash surplus the Soviet Union was generating from oil dried up, and the nation effectively was bankrupted. That’s the main reason the Soviet Union collapsed.

Similar covert operations and economic attacks could put irresistible pressure on even Saddam Hussein and other terrorist nations, and we should launch such campaigns immediately. Another form of economic war that could be employed is the increased use of bounties. Why don’t we, as Wilson Lucom implores, offer $1 billion for Saddam Hussein or bin Laden – dead or alive. Already the State Department offers such bounties, but the reward money is in the tens of millions – not the sort of money that would motivate individuals in foreign countries to risk their lives.

5. Unite the Free World.

Reagan offered leadership, but he was careful to gain Western support for his war against communism. Reagan understood that America could not be the leader of the Free World if we were not backed by free nations. Reagan rallied the world by making his battle not one simply against communism, but one for freedom and democracy. His policies caused an avalanche of nations all over the world to move from dictatorships or authoritarian regimes to democratic models.

Wisely, the Bush administration is putting more money and resources than ever into a worldwide media campaign to fight terrorism. At this moment, however, America is losing the global propaganda war. Because we haven’t effectively made our case for the War on Terror outside the U.S., in one short year in the eyes of the world we have gone from sympathetic "victims of 9-11" to "Yankee imperialists."

6. Stick to your plan.

No matter how much flak Reagan got from Congress, the liberal media, etc., he stuck to his guns. Reagan was unwavering in his opposition to communism as an evil that had to be confronted.

Bush has yet to articulate a clear plan on either dealing with Iraq or other terrorist nations, much less one that is low risk.

7. Prepare for the worst.

Reagan inherited a weakened military and a CIA decimated by Jimmy Carter. Reagan engaged in a massive military buildup at every level – from foot soldiers, to transport ships, to aircraft carriers, to new strategic missiles such as the MX.

Reagan knew that America was inadequately prepared for the dangers we faced in an often-hostile world, and to survive and prosper, America had to prepare for many conflicts.

Bush’s reaction to the new terrorist threat to date is strong, but still not all-encompassing. The actual military buildup has been anemic in light of America’s depleted armaments (we reported at one point that we had less than 80 battle-ready cruise missiles!).

After eight years of Clinton, America’s military remains "a mile wide and an inch deep." On the surface it looks impressive, but virtually every major weapon we need to fight a protracted war – from ammunition to aircraft to missiles – is in critically short supply. It appears that America wants to fight the new war on terror on the cheap. That is not a smart thing to do.

8. Keep America America!

Reagan believed that America’s greatness lay in her freedom. Had we taken the route of becoming a heavily militarized police state – in a quest to defeat the Soviets – we would most assuredly have laid the groundwork for our own demise as a republic. Reagan favored empowering the FBI and CIA within the framework of existing laws and structures. He did not favor massive government bureaucracies; in fact, Reagan always saw government as more of a problem than a solution.

Here the Bush administration has taken a very different view. The USA PATRIOT Act gives the federal government sweeping powers over citizens, and the new Homeland Security Department will be a new, massive federal bureaucracy.

Reagan likely would have questioned such moves.

None of the Sept. 11 hijackers were U.S. citizens. So why should U.S. citizens be spied upon and have their civil liberties curtailed?

The FBI and CIA could have prevented Sept. 11 and had all the power necessary to infiltrate and thwart the terrorist networks. Why should they have new powers, and how does a new federal agency fix the problem of bureaucratic malfeasance and negligence?

Between War and Inaction

The Bush administration needs to seriously consider a third alternative to inaction or all-out war against Iraq, which could escalate attacks on the U.S. and destabilize the war.

One crucial element is building a new global alliance against terror and thugs like Saddam Hussein. Another is to rebuild our military at every level.

A third element is to isolate and surround Iraq and neutralize its biggest weapon: its oil reserves.

Finally, creative methods of eliminating Saddam Hussein and his regime without all-out warfare and destruction need to be seriously considered before an outright invasion is launched.

Let’s steal some plays from Ronald Reagan’s game book and do to the terrorist nations what he did to the Soviets.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Saddam Hussein’s race to make a nuclear bomb