Opinion

President Bush and his foreign policy

Mahmood Elahi writes from Ottawa, Canada
I am writing with reference to "Foreign policy in Bush's White House," by Arsahd-uz-Zaman (DS February 10). Ambassador Zaman has followed the conventional wisdom while speaking about the failure of US foreign policy under President George W. Bush. But conventional wisdom sometimes falls short in articulating the reality. In the debate over Saddam's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it is forgotten that the terrorists , who destroyed the WTC, did not need any WMD. They used something as simple as knives and boxcutters to turn jetliners into veritable WMD. The crucial factors had been the sanctuary and support provided by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to plan and execute the attack.

As Henry Kissinger pointed out before the war that the United States faces two new threats since Sept. 11: the emergence of terrorist groups on a scale never seen before and rogue regimes willing to collude with them. With the rogue regimes providing financial and logistic support, the terrorist groups are more than willing to attack what they consider as their common enemy -- the United States. Saddam Hussein may not have helped al-Qaeda in the past, but given his hatred for America (because it did not allow him to conquer Kuwait), his joining hands with bin Laden in the future could not be ruled out. After Sept. 11, no actual or potential threat to the American security can be allowed to exist.

As for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, he had them and used them against the Kurds with devastating effects. He might have destroyed his stockpile of bio-chemical weapons of mass destruction, but it would be only a matter of time before he could reactivate his weapons programme if he was allowed to stay in power. If he was allowed to stay in power and sanctions were lifted, Saddam would have billions of dollars to pay for his resurrected weapons programme. Critics of Mr. Bush have ignored the fact that the alternative to military intervention would be to let Saddam revitalise his armed forces and become a threat to his neighbours again. By removing an odious dictator, Bush has done a great favour to Iraq's neighbours.

Finally, most critics fail to realise that America owes it to the Iraqi people to oust Saddam. It may be recalled that after the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq's oppressed Shiite majority, listening to a call by then President Bush Sr. to oust Saddam, rose in revolt. But instead of helping the rebels, Bush Sr. and his advisers stood by and let Saddam brutally crush the revolt. Saddam's Republican Guards went on a rampage and slaughtered nearly 300,000 Shiites in the south and a formidable American military machine in nearby Kuwait stood by and watched. Bush Sr. and his advisers reckoned that if the Shiites had succeeded, Iraq would come under the domination of Shiite Iran which was considered as a greater threat. They failed to realise that if Iraq was liberated by American arms, the U.S. would have called the shots and Iraq would have come under the American sphere of influence.

By urging the Iraqis to revolt and then let them be massacred, the United States bears a historical responsibility for the betrayal of the Iraqi people. By ousting Saddam, President George W. Bush has finally redeemed America's earlier betrayal and vindicated America's honour.

Most American voters agree that ousting Saddam was a right thing to do. This is why Mr. Bush has retained his commanding lead in the polls. Despite attacks by Democratic frontrunner Senator John Kerry that President Bush has misled the nation, most Americans are likely to re-elect him in a landslide.