|
World > Buildup in the Gulf
posted February 06, 2003
War against Iraq: questions and answers
The Monitor takes some of the questions we hear most frequently about whether to invade Iraq, and we summarize — without fear or favor — the major pro and con answers to each of them.
By Joshua Burek, Ben Arnoldy, and Jim Bencivenga | Staff writers of csmonitor.com
What's the rush? Shouldn't we give inspectors more time?
|
What rush? Twelve years of diplomatic sanctions, and we still don't know if Saddam Hussein has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
UN inspections have failed to disclose all of Iraq's illegal weapons programs. At least aggressive diplomacy has forced a fuller accounting of Hussein's human-rights record and weapons stockpile. But regime change would eliminate any role Hussein might play as WMD quartermaster for terrorist groups already waging war against the US. No president can run the risk of another major city being attacked. Any Iraqi supply of chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda would be unimaginably destructive. To put this in context, recent history suggests that US military action is often needed to end tyrannical government. As Colin Powell made clear this week, the integrity of the UN is at stake should it continue to waver in disarming Hussein. Timing is 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. Besides, as soon as the threat of war is gone, Hussein will freeze the inspectors out again.
|
|
|
|
The US has convincingly argued that Iraq poses a problem. It has not, however, made clear why war now is the solution.
In the past 12 years, US and UN actions have dealt Iraq a crushing blow in the Persian Gulf War, global sanctions, targeted bombing raids, and high-profile weapons inspections. The result? Since then, Saddam Hussein has not directly threatened the security of any nation. Forget clear and present danger. Hussein does not even pose credible danger. According to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, Iraq poses "absolutely nothing" of a military threat. 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 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 the power from Hussein.
|
|
Doesn't North Korea pose a more immediate threat?
|
Iraq and North Korea are both immediate threats to world peace, but they should be handled differently.
Granted, military options in dealing with North Korea are decidedly fewer, and far more complicated, than those in Iraq, given North Korea's proximity (30 miles) to Seoul. Like Iraq, North Korea is an authoritarian, one-man dictatorship that fuels a war machine far out of proportion to its legitimate security needs. Military planners and diplomats no longer need to imagine a Hussein with nuclear capability, they simply have to consider Kim Jong Il. Unlike in the Middle East, where the US is the lead player in disarming Iraq, there are powerful countries surrounding North Korea — Russia, China, Japan, as well as South Korea — with vital interests in diffusing the nuclear threat posed by Kim Jong Il. Only the US can lead a credible coalition to counter Iraqi expansion. Israel's security interests, and therefore US involvement, will inevitably come into play should Hussein be left unchecked. Regime change in Iraq would also send a clear signal to North Korea and Iran should either attempt to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. So the US shouldn't let North Korea distract it from what it needs to do in Iraq.
|
|
|
|
Iraq poses a disturbing possible future. North Korea poses an alarming reality.
Unlike Iraq, North Korea probably already has nuclear weapons and 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. Pyongyang passed missile technology to Pakistan — hardly helpful to the nuclear standoff on the Indian subcontinent. US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said before that the North Koreans "continue to be the single largest proliferator of ballistic missile technology on the face of the Earth." Therefore the US should not invade Iraq because it would only distract the US from the more urgent threat.
|
|
Won't war against Iraq inflame terrorism?
|
Terrorists cannot be appeased. The US is already in a new type of war — it started on 9/1l/01.
The Arab world needs an example of a democratic state respecting the rights of individual citizens. With Hussein deposed, 20 million Iraqis will lead a better life. There is no groundswell of support for Hussein. Iraq routinely uses terror against its own people. Creating the conditions for a nascent democracy in a major Arab state would go a long way toward addressing the conditions that foster terrorism. Also, Israel's security interests would inevitably come into play were Hussein to be left unchecked. Israel would likely be forced to take action against Iraq. Preventing this is another way to defuse terrorism.
|
|
|
|
If cornered by US troops, Saddam Hussein might unleash a WMD attack in desperation.
A key assumption of the Bush administration is that as part of the larger war on terror, the effort to disarm Iraq will help make the world safer. Yet this assumption has been challenged by none other than CIA Director George Tenet. In a letter to Congress last October, Tenet wrote: "Should Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions." Even worse, the agency concluded that "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." The first Persian Gulf War lasted only 100 hours. Yet it motivated Osama bin Laden and his followers to seek payback. Full-scale invasion could likely amplify this radical Muslim anger — and consequently, US and allied vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
|
|
By acting alone, would the US isolate itself in the world?
|
UN diplomacy won't stop Hussein — the US must act now, even if alone.
The US is the world's only superpower. It must act. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people continues to amass such weapons. Had the US not spearheaded UN action in the Balkans, what would the status of Muslims there be now? The UN still is not ready for prime time against a ruthless, armed dictator without the policing capabilities and will of the US. Unilateral action may make the US unpopular, but it would reinforce its superpower status. The world is still thankful Israel destroyed the core of the nearly complete French-built Osiraq nuclear reactor outside of Baghdad in 1981. The US will be thanked as well after Iraqi regime change is brought about. The US, along with the rest of the developed world, has a strategic interest in the continued free flow of Middle East oil.
|
|
|
|
Unilateral action on Iraq would be the straw the breaks the back of allied support for the US cause.
International enthusiasm for a US attack on Iraq has been slow to build. When the US pushed ahead anyway, many of its allies grumbled about this "go-it-alone" attitude. The US has opted out of the Kyoto climate treaty, the International Criminal Court, and landmine and chemical weapons treaties, all efforts broadly supported by the UN. Justifying action against Iraq based on UN mandates, only to try to steamroll Security Council opposition to a war, opens the US to charges of hypocrisy, feeding cynicism about American power and undermining America's moral authority. The US needs the goodwill of other nations. Foreign governments have played a major role in rounding up Al Qaeda suspects and crimping the organization's finances.
|
|
|
|
|
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Christian Science Monitor | csmonitor.com
Sorry, this page has moved or does not exist
Some possible causes for this error message:
- The site or bookmark used to get here needs to be updated
- The site may be down or temporarily overloaded by visitors
- The URL may have a typing error
Having trouble finding something? Try our site map.
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
RSS feed
