Role of Government

 March 5, 2003

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The above is the first sentence of the United States Declaration of Independence. Tellingly, in the two segments where it suggests what the role of a government should be, the first responsibilities are Life and then Safety. That is no accident. On the most fundamental level, the single most important duty of any government is to ensure to the greatest degree possible the safety and security of its citizens. Here in the United States, with government involved in almost every aspect of our lives, we often lose sight of the fact that above all else, before anything and everything else, our government’s first responsibility is to protect its citizens.

Much of the debate that is going on both in America and around the world is filled with red herrings and non-sequiturs. "Win without War." "No Blood for Oil". "Stop American Imperialism" "Not without the UN" None of that which tries to pass as debate holds water. All of it misses the fact that regardless of what the French, Russians, the American Left or anyone else says, the United States government has the right and responsibility to both disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. The most common refrain of the Left is that by acting in a unilateral manner, President Bush will engender hate for America across the Muslim world and spur terrorism. Even a cursory look at the last decade will demonstrate that argument to be without merit. WTC I; Embassies in Africa; Army barracks in Saudi Arabia; the USS Cole; September 11; Daniel Pearl… These examples and many others demonstrate that the animosity already exists. The key however, is that as bad as those events were, even together they would pale in comparison to the damage wrought if a nuclear weapon were detonated on a boat on the Potomac or the Hudson Rivers or if a chemical agent were released in Chicago or LA.

The reality is that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and has tried to get his hands on nuclear weapons. The fundamental question is: Does it seem unreasonable that he would be willing to sell those weapons to Al Queda or some other group seeking to harm America or her friends. No. By his actions he has demonstrated he has no compunction about using WMD against military or civilian populations and he willingly supports terrorism. The latter is demonstrated by his $25,000 payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The question now becomes do we sit back and wait for the UN to pass another 17 resolutions in the hope that Saddam will disarm before he sells his weapons or do we take action now to protect the United States. The answer can be divined from the words of an arrested Al Queda fighter: You can’t win. You have to be perfect every time in order to consider yourselves successful. For us, we have to be lucky just once. Given the monumental implications from that statement, it becomes crystal clear that the odds are stacked against us and that the only chance we have to avoid the ramifications of their being "lucky just once" is to remove the greatest potential source for weapons of mass destruction, Iraq. That does not suggest that the War on Terrorism is over or that other regimes will not have to be dealt with; it is not and they will be. But today, for a government whose primary responsibility is the safety and security of its citizens, the fate of Iraq, and by implication, the actions and security of the United States cannot be decided on the banks of the Seine, thwarted under the domes of the Kremlin or held hostage to the vagaries of an ineffectual United Nations.

When all is said and done, President Bush must do that which he has taken an oath to do and that which is stated in black and white in the first sentence of the Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In a world beset by incoherent ramblings, wishful thinking and absurd exhortations, those words provide a touchstone of moral clarity. By upholding that pledge and dealing with Saddam Hussein, President Bush will lengthen the flame of American liberty that shines as a beacon of hope, freedom and greatness to billions of people around the world.