Bush's Quandry by Sean Kay
Bush's Quandry
By Sean Kay (Aug. 23, 2002)
(This article first appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.)
The argument for attacking Iraq seems compelling: Iraq has previously at tained weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons against his own people. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and used Scud missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel during the Persian Gulf War. In 1993, Hussein plotted to kill former President George Bush. In 1998, Iraq ceased cooperating with U.N. weapons inspectors, thus breaking the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War. When they left, some inspectors predicted that Iraq was a year away from attaining nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, for more than 10 years, a successful policy of containment has kept Iraq relatively at bay.
A small group of neoconservative policymakers in the current Bush administration came to office determined to remove Saddam Hussein from power. These advocates have persuaded President George W. Bush to support "regime change" in Iraq and the talk of war grows daily. If the Bush administration is going to commit American men, women and resources to battle, it must better explain the risks.
The United States has virtually no allies against Iraq. Even the Iraqi Kurds, who Saddam Hussein attacked with chemical weapons, are reserved at best. Our closest friends and allies in Europe vehemently oppose war. America will fight alone, pay the bills alone and rebuild Iraq alone. Having come to government opposed to nation-building, President Bush is advancing America into a long-term nation-building commitment. Although such a policy would be noble, there are plenty of other places - beginning with Afghanistan - that might take higher priority.
This conflict probably would look more like the movie "Black Hawk Down" than the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is not going to put his elite forces at risk in the battlefield. He is more likely to intermix his troops and weapons capabilities within major cities. Although U.S. forces are well trained and equipped to win such a war, America will suffer casualties. How long will the American public support street-to-street, door-to-door fighting in a desperate hunt for Saddam?
Passion in the Muslim world already is fueled against America. Knowing this, Hussein will probably provoke Israel into retaliation. It is not merely hypothetical to assume that biological or chemical weapons could be launched against Israel in response to an assault on Iraq. Israel, a nuclear power, has said it would retaliate with all means necessary. America's effort to remove, rather than contain, Saddam Hussein could be the very action that prompts the use of weapons of mass destruction - leading to devastation in both Iraq and Israel. Other, less apocalyptic scenarios involve the radicalization of the Palestinian movement, the collapse of the government in Saudi Arabia, an increase in anti-American terrorism, and a near-term break in covert intelligence cooperation from key Arab countries.
The Bush administration has offered no concept for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. Iraq risks collapsing into chaos, provoking intervention from Turkey, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia - with American troops caught in the middle. Even if a regime change succeeds, the weapons of mass destruction problem may not be resolved. A post-Saddam leader would have every reason to sustain a nuclear program, given the Iraq's neighborhood. Only then it would be with America's blessing.
In waging offensive war, the United States will break precedent with the very foundations of international law that have governed international relations since World War II. How will the United States be able to call on the rules of international relations if Russia attacks a neighbor, or China invades Taiwan? We would have spent the pro-American sentiment that spread throughout the world following Sept. 11. Absent direct evidence of Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks, it would be very difficult to convince the international community that a pre-emptive attack is justified.
Although President Bush said Wednesday that he's in no hurry to go to war with Iraq, his saber-rattling and characterizations of Saddam Hussein have backed him into a political corner from which war seems inevitable. If the president believes the risks are worth it, then he must do a far better job of explaining the stakes.
It is possible that an attack against Iraq will succeed, a new regime will come in, and a stable Iraq will emerge. However, far worse outcomes also are very possible.
Before the civilians in the Bush administration who are so hungry for war against Iraq go down that road, they must better explain their actions. And, if they do go to war and things go horribly wrong, they will have to answer the question of why they didn't pursue other alternatives before acting.
Sean Kay is associate professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University and a non-resident fellow at the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, D.C.