« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
but there are also dollar costs to not acting-and those costs water. Consider: the New York City Comptroller estimates that of the Sept. 11 attacks to New York alone were between $83
further estimated that New York lost 83,000 existing jobs and the city estimates would have been created had the attacks not stitute puts the cost to the national economy at $191 billionllion jobs lost as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks. Other Wher-as much as $250 billion in lost productivity, sales, jobs, a revenue and the like. And that is not to mention the cost in
the suffering of those who lost fathers and mothers, sons and es and brothers that day.
ot forget that the costs of a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons a far worse. The price in lives would be not thousands, but tens of nd the economic costs could make September 11th pale by Those are the costs that also must be weighed carefully. And this is Che cost to one's conscience of being wrong.
uggested that if the U.S. were to act it might provoke Saddam
e of WMD. Last time, the argument goes, he didn't use chemical 7 U.S. troops and allies because he saw our goal was not to oust him, back his aggression. This time, the argument goes, the opposite would he would have nothing to lose by using WMD.
important point. And the President made clear on March 13, 2002 the nces of such an attack. He said: "we've got all options on the table we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the tates or use weapons of mass destruction against us, our allies, or our
te ways to mitigate the risk of a chem-bio attack, but it cannot be entirely Led-it is true that could be a risk of military action. But consider the fuences if the world were to allow that risk to deter us from acting. We
then have sent a message to the world about the value of weapons of mass uction that we would deeply regret having sent. A country thinking about
ng WMD would conclude that the U.S. had been deterred by fraq's chemical lological weapons capabilities, and they could then resolve to pursue those ons to assure their impunity. The message the world should want to send is (act opposite. The message should be that Iraq's pursuit of WMD has not not made it more secure, it has made it less secure - that by pursuing those pons, they have attracted undesired attention to themselves.
if he is that dangerous, then that only makes the case for action strongercause the longer we wait, the more deadly his regime becomes. If the world ommunity were to be deterred from acting today by the threat that Iraq might use
question. It is likely that international forces would have to be in Iraq of time, to help a new transitional Iraqi government get on its feet and utions where the Iraqi people would be able to choose a new
and achieve self-determination. But that burden is a small one, when "ainst the risks of not acting.
Lan, our approach was that Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans-we
stan, the U.S. and coalition countries helped create conditions so that
people could exercise their right of self-government. Throughout the - Ss and the Loya Jirga process, a new president was chosen, a new orn-in, and a transitional government, representative of the Afghan Js established to lead the nation.
sident were to make the decision to liberate Iraq, with coalition partners, it lp the Iraqi people establish a government that would be a single country, not threaten its neighbors, the United States, or the world with aggression pons of mass destruction, and that would respect the rights of its diverse on.
s an educated population that has been brutally and viciously repressed by n Hussein's regime. He has kept power not by building loyalty, but by
g fear-in his people, his military and the government bureaucracy. I ut that there would be substantial detections once it became clear that
m Hussein was finished. Moreover, there are numerous free Iraqi leaders .nside Iraq and abroad - who would play a role in establishing that new free jovernment. So there is no shortage of talent available to lead and -ilitate a free Iraq.
rms of economic rehabilitation, Iraq has an advantage over Afghanistan. A > Iraq would be less dependent on international assistance, and could nceivably get back on its feet faster, because Iraq has a marketable commodity
ome have raised concerns that other countries elsewhere in the world might take Advantage of the fact that the U.S. in tied up in Iraq, and use that as an opportunity to invade neighbors or cause other mischief.
There is certainly a risk that some countries might underestimate our capability to handle Iraq and stop their aggression at the same time. But let there be no doubt: we have that capability.