The prosecution of our war against Jihadistan closed ranks on the Iraqi front this week, in preparation for the “regime change” necessary to eliminate Iraq as a primary source of weapons of mass destruction to asymmetric Jihadi proxies like those in al-Qa'ida terrorist cells slumbering in U.S. urban centers.

Meanwhile, the UN was still prosecuting its debate (read “diversion”) over what to do about Saddam’s unwillingness to give up his WMD stocks, in preparation for UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix’s report March 7. Using the shenanigans to buy additional time to get essential U.S., British and allied military resources in place on Iraq’s northern border with Turkey, Secretary of State Colin Powell continued playing along ostensibly to gain 9 of the 15 UN Security Council votes on resolution #18, while simultaneously prevailing upon Russia and China not to exercise their veto, and forcing France to register its support or lone veto.

France has proved itself the most adamant opponent to war with Iraq, with its desire to undermine U.S. influence abroad, collect billions of unpaid Iraqi IOUs, profit from existing oil contracts with Iraq once sanctions are lifted, and appease its own 6 million Muslim residents – 10% of France’s population.

Russia, like France, has much at stake in Iraq, with $6 billion in unpaid foreign debt. All the same, Russia’s interests should be seen as much a strategic concern as an economic one, as the nation tries to re-attain its status as a world power amid economically, politically and socially unstable times. …Which may explain Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov’s statement that Russia stands ready to veto the U.S.-British resolution – if necessary to preserve “international stability.”

China, on the other hand, has no significant strategic interest in the Middle East, and cannot become fully integrated into world markets without the support of the U.S. China is far more concerned about a North Korean regime that has seemingly slipped out from under its control than it is about Iraq, and, we estimate, will likely not veto the U.S. measure on Iraq.

The UN-believable debate over farcical resolutions in the shadow of overwhelming evidence of Iraqi noncompliance with UN Resolution 1441 (passed unanimously, as you recall, by the Security Council last November) left President George W. Bush with few words for the UN: “We expect the Security Council to honor its word by insisting that Saddam disarm.”

Of course, for his part, Saddam was still full of – words. Hosted by Leftmedia talkinghead Dan Rather, CBS “aided and abetted the enemy” by airing an interview with this avowed adversary of the United States, giving him a platform to advance his propaganda in households across America. (Apparently, CNN, after taking it on the chin for its traitorous interview with Osama bin Laden after 9-11, did not bid on this one.)

Regarding Saddam’s “scorched earth” tactics – his willingness to burn his own oil fields and destroy his own infrastructure rather than leave it intact when he is deposed – he said, “Iraq does not destroy its wealth and it does not destroy its dams.” We’ll see – soon. Regarding his willingness to capitulate, Saddam told Rather, “Whoever decides to forsake his nation…is not true to the principles.” (We think there is a lesson somewhere in those words for Rather.) And Saddam challenged President Bush to a debate in front of the world: “I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue – a debate – with your president.” (We propose a duel instead!)

But Saddam’s time is up. Make no mistake, despite all the 24-hour news cycle chatter about “this deadline for destroying that,” the “regime change” policy is in the driver’s seat and it is the only way to ensure that Iraq’s WMD stocks do not find their way to our shores. The latest round of Saddam’s cat-and-mouse game involves his al Samoud 2 missiles, which he promises to destroy. But the game is over as Secretary Powell made clear: “With respect to the missiles, it doesn’t change our view of the situation in the slightest. Those missiles were prohibited in the first place. They should have been destroyed long ago.”

Operation Enduring Freedom (“Operation Let’s Roll” as it is known around our shop) now has 210,000 troops ready to choke this tyrant regime and liberate 22 million Iraqis – liberation that has other Middle East tyrants very concerned for their own regimes. There is, in fact, the possibility of a “domino effect” created by the fall of Iraq, as noted by President Bush: “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations of the region.”

Of course, 210,000 seems light compared to the 500,000 coalition forces in the desert for 1991’s brief engagement. However, Iraq has less than half the hardware and forces it fielded in 1991, and our forces are better trained and backed by far more lethal weapons technology than we had in 1991. It is possible that this engagement could be similar in length and complexity to that in Afghanistan – we certainly pray it will not be a protracted engagement for the sake of our forces, their families, and the Iraqi people. The wild card, of course, is Saddam’s willingness to use his WMD stocks, and the length of time necessary to roll Iraq’s RepGuard in a siege of Baghdad.

There is still a significant probability (though not certainty) that hostilities with Iraq will commence in the 72 hour window on either side of 0200 Iraq local time, 02 March, the first tactical window for an assault. (Yes, we are now in that window.) One factor currently delaying action is the intelligence estimate concerning Saddam’s willingness to capitulate and, as we have suggested previously, head for Tehran, Tripoli or Algiers. But we think he will not leave until hostilities have commenced.

This is the last call for “human shields” to take up positions in Baghdad. Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Ed Asner, Rabbi Michael Lerner, et. al, time is short! And please take Jimmy Carter and Jackie Chirac with you!

In other news…

A notable anniversary was celebrated in Kuwait this week, the 12th since that small ally was liberated from Iraqi invaders. Perhaps similar scenes of rejoicing will soon break out in Iraq proper.

There was another notable anniversary this week. As celebrity protestors and their cadre of collegiate coeds continued to rally against military action on the Jihadistan warfront with Iraq, Wednesday marked the 10th anniversary of the Jihadis’ first assault on U.S. soil – sheik Ramzi Yousef’s bombing of the north tower of the WTC, February 26, 1993. This was the opening shot in our asymmetric war with Jihadistan – that borderless nation of Islamic extremists with global reach, inhabited by al-Qa'ida and other Islamists who are targeting the U.S. This is the enemy who visited us early one beautiful September morning – the enemy whose threat has necessitated a national security policy shift from containment to preemption.

On the subject of war protests, a few years ago, The Federalist wrote on the subject, “Liberal is Easy.” Protesting the warfront with Iraq is no exception. It is easy to be anti-war – no member of our staff wants war. What the Left fails to acknowledge on all its political and social fronts is that it is hard, and often courageous, to take responsible positions on matters of great importance to our national character, our national defense and our posterity. It is hard to support any war knowing it may have great human costs to our forces and our adversary’s non-combatants. However, in the case of Iraq, it is just and right.

We have, among our readers, reasonable people who do not believe that preemptive war with Iraq is necessary – and that does not make them “anti-American.” As Americans, we all have a right to our opinion. But that, of course, does not mean that all our opinions are right.

Far left of those who have reasoned objections to war with Iraq is a cadre of Leftist celebrities (Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, Alec Baldwin, Jesse Jackson, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Ed Asner, Rabbi Michael Lerner, et al.) who are using the current national security threat from Iraq to do what they do best – evoke anti-American sentiment and incite anti-American action. They are acting under the umbrella of a petition “Not In Our Name” and ad campaign “Win Without War.”

In response, The Federalist launched a national counteroffensive to redress and rebut these Leftists. Our petition, “In Our Name: A Statement of Justice,” supports our President and armed forces in their constitutional role defending our nation against imminent threats to our homeland from terrorists and their state sponsors. If we don’t fight them on their soil, we will surely be fighting them on our soil. (In Our Name collected almost 25,000 signatures in its first day!)

If you have not already done so, we invite you to join with fellow Patriots standing in defense of our national sovereignty. Please sign “In Our Name: A Statement of Justice.” Link to – https://patriotpost.us/petition/in-our-name/

PRIVACY POLICY: Patriot Petitions, like The Federalist, does NOT release any identifiable information on our signers or subscribers to any third party under any circumstances, nor do we accept any third party advertising to our lists.