 |
Peter Brookes writes
a weekly column on foreign policy and defense
for the New York Post and is penning
a book on national security affairs for McGraw
Hill due out early next fall. He appears regularly
on national TV and radio.
Prior to joining the Heritage
Foundation, Brookes served in the Bush
administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense (DASD) for Asian and Pacific Affairs
in the Office of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, where he was responsible for the
development, planning, guidance and oversight
of U .S. security and defense policy for 38
countries and 5 bilateral defense alliances
in the Asia-Pacific region.
Brookes has a distinguished military background,
including active duty in support of military
operations in Iraq/Kuwait (Desert Storm);
Haiti (Restore Democracy); and Bosnia (Joint
Endeavor). He flew reconnaissance missions
in East Asia and the Persian Gulf while stationed
in Japan covering military matters related
to the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Vietnam,
Iran and Iraq. His personal awards and decorations
include: the Joint Service Commendation Medal;
the Navy Commendation Medal (3 awards); the
Navy Achievement Medal; several naval and
joint unit awards; the Defense Language Institute’s
Kellogg Award; the Joint Chiefs of Staff service
badge; and Naval Aviation Observer (NAO) wings.
Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this
article? Visit the discussion forum.
View
the Brookes Archives
|
|
|
|
December 15, 2003
[Sound
Off! - Have an opinion about this commentary? Visit the
discussion forum.]
The capture of Saddam Hussein is reason for real celebration for the Bush administration and for the Iraqi people, but its effect on the War on Terror is unclear.
Of course it's a boon for stability, reconstruction and democracy in Iraq, but beyond that it's too early to tell.
Saddam's capture could persuade Syrian and Iranian leaders that their support for terrorism, in the form of such rogues as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda, is a fool's errand and will likely resign their fate, as well, to the despot dustbin of history.
And if Saddam decides to cooperate with his debriefers, we could learn a tremendous amount about the questions that tug at our intellects daily, such as the organization of the resistance network in Iraq, Iraq's relationship with terrorist organizations, and, of course, the fate of his weapons of mass destruction (WMD.)
Information about Iraq's role in terrorism, now and in the past, would help us unravel the fabric of the world's terrorist network. And have Saddam's WMDs question been spirited to Syria or Lebanon's Bekaa Valley or buried deep in the Iraqi desert?
But the War on Terror continues. Word of an assassination attempt on Pakistan's President Musharaff, who sided with the United States against al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11, shows that this struggle is not over by any stretch of the imagination.
Considering Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and its border with Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia (another potential hotspot inhabited by the terrorist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the radical fundamentalist group Hizb ut Tahrir), the country is arguably one of the most important in the War on Terror.
And if that news isn't enough: A U.N. panel has reportedly warned of a continuing, lucrative funding stream to terrorists, including drug money. A separate report by the the U.S. General Accounting Office squealed on Sunday that the Justice and Treasury Departments are still struggling with understanding and stemming the flow of terrorist blood money, especially where terrorist groups are using commodities, such as diamonds, gems, or gold, to move money internationally.
The U.N. report also warned that al Qaeda "has already taken the decision to use chemical and biological weapons in their forthcoming attacks. The only constraint they are facing is the technical complexity to operate them properly and effectively."
This means that it isn't getting their clammy mitts on weapons of mass destruction, it's how to use them properly to kill the most people possible. So it's not a question of if, but a question of when, some innocent civilians will suffer the fate of these horrible weapons at the hands of al Qaeda or one of its international franchises, such as Southeast Asia's Jemaah Islamiya.
Bagging Saddam is great news, but it's not Miller time yet. It's one less face hanging in the rogue's gallery, but letting our guard down in Iraq, or elsewhere, for even a second could be disastrous.
[Have an opinion on this article? Sound
off here.]
© 2003 Peter Brookes. Mr. Brookes is
a Senior Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Heritage Foundation
in Washington, DC. This column originally appeared in the New
York Post. All opinions expressed in this article are the author's
and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.
|
