The Bush Administration submitted its resolution to Congress last week justifying force against Iraq.
It cited Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and its, “nuclear weapons capability” as sufficient grounds for a U.S. attack.
Taken in one dimension, the threats look grave. However we might want to examine the region as whole to understand some of Saddam Hussein’s actions.
First, most of the nations in the Middle East are involved in the development of weapons of mass destruction. Also the united States rearmament and negation of such treaties as the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the development of battlefield nukes has done little to create an atmosphere of confidence in non-proliferation. Hussein’s development of nuclear weapons could easily be based on calculations of deterrence, just as his actions of har-boring members of al-Qaida.
For all the hype about al-Qaida in Baghdad, Hussein might be flirting with terrorists as a means to deter the United States. Hussein has a long record of oppressing not only his people, but also those with the philosophy of Osama bin Laden.
The adherents of bin Laden could easily be content with the overthrow of a secular regime such as Iraq, which would make it highly unlikely that Hussein would give his potential weapons of mass destruction to these people, when he could use the weapons to deter an invading force.
Moving beyond United Nations sanctions, the United States could build Iraq’s government in exile, while flooding the nation with pro-dissent propaganda via radio and satellite, and creating a Northern Alliance of sorts in the Iraq no-fly zones. Additionally, we need to persuade Iraq’s neighbors to stop the flow of weapons into the region.
We need to continue to destroy suspicious sites in Iraq with air strikes. To counter Saddam’s aggressive tendencies, we could form coalitions of neighboring states such as the NATO of the Middle East. We could even engage Iraq over mediating the territorial dispute with Iran over the Shatt al Arab waterway. None of these ideas alone will solve the problem , however war carries long-term consequences.
Even if we win a lightning war with Iraq, we will have to fight a war with potentially only two allies, and unlike the first Gulf War, we alone will have to shoulder the burden of an $80-200 billion military campaign when we have pressing domestic issues.
Removing Hussein from power will not automatically bring stability to Iraq as removing the Taliban from Afghanistan has not automatically brought stability to that country. Instead, we have been stuck with a costly billion-dollar commitment to rebuilding one nation and the realization now that once defeated foes can live on to fight another day.
