War against Iraq: questions and answers

NO: More time? Twelve years of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and limited military strikes have failed, noted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last Saturday. And we still don't know if Saddam Hussein has destroyed his chemical or biological weapons.

UN inspections have failed to disclose all of Iraq's illegal weapons programs. Aggressive diplomacy, at least, has forced a fuller accounting of Mr. Hussein's human rights record and weapons stockpile. But regime change would eliminate any role Hussein might play as chemical or biological quartermaster for Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group. No president can run the risk of another major US city being attacked. To put this in context, recent history suggests that US military action is often needed to end tyrannical government. As Secretary of State Colin Powell argued last week, the integrity of the UN is at stake. Timing is also critical. The US can't permanently mobilize the troops needed to guarantee victory in combat. Summer temperatures in the region also warrant military engagement sooner, rather than later. And it's likely that as soon as the threat of war is gone, Hussein will freeze the inspectors out again.

YES: The US has convincingly argued that Iraq poses a problem. It has not, however, made clear why war now is the solution.

Over the past 12 years, US and UN actions have forced Iraq out of Kuwait and contained Saddam Hussein with economic sanctions, targeted bombing raids, and high-profile weapons inspections. Since then, Mr. Hussein has not directly threatened the security of any nation. According to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq poses "absolutely nothing" in the way of a military threat to the US.

So why invade now? Bush says that 9/11 underscores the willingness of America's enemies to strike hard, without notice. But there's no proven connection between Hussein and 9/11, and evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda remains vague. Aggressive new UN inspections and intensified global awareness have led to a fuller accounting of Iraq's weapons programs and Hussein's dismal human rights record. Diplomacy alone may never remove Hussein from power. But it is removing any power he may have to threaten the US.

NO: Iraq and North Korea are both threats to world peace, but each should be handled differently.

The military options for dealing with North Korea are fewer and far more complicated than those for Iraq. North Korea's border is only 30 miles from Seoul. The risks of massive casualties are much higher. Yes, North Korea is run by a dictator with a war machine far out of proportion to his country's security needs. And Kim Jong Il may have nuclear weapons. But unlike in the Middle East, powerful countries surrounding North Korea - Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea - have vital interests in defusing this threat. Only the US can lead a credible coalition against Iraq. Israel's security interests, and therefore US involvement, will come into play should Saddam Hussein be left unchecked. Regime change in Iraq would also send a signal to North Korea should it attempt to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

YES: Iraq poses a disturbing possible future threat. North Korea poses a current actual threat. Unlike Iraq, North Korea may already have nuclear weapons, and it possesses the materials and know-how needed to make more. Also, the communist North is developing missiles that could strike Alaska, Hawaii, and possibly even the US West Coast. While Iraq has relied heavily on supplies from foreign companies to build its weapons programs, North Korea has been a major exporter of weapons technology. Last November, a CIA report indicated that Pyongyang had passed missile technology to Pakistan - hardly helpful to the nuclear standoff on the Indian subcontinent. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said that the North Koreans "continue to be the single largest proliferator of ballistic-missile technology on the face of the Earth." Any US invasion of Iraq would only distract from the more urgent threat: North Korea.

Page: 1 | 2