Public Safety by Sean Kay and Joshua Spero
PUBLIC SAFETY
The risks of going to war against Iraq
By Sean Kay and Joshua Spero (November 3, 2002)
(Orginally published in the Boston Globe.)
President George W. Bush has finally begun to address the American public with his case for war with Iraq. However, he has failed to explain the high risks associated with a major military operation. It is possible that a military invasion of Iraq, unilaterally or multilaterally, will significantly damage American national security.
An Iraqi campaign would not be won with air power. The objective of regime change mandates avoiding the destruction of infrastructure that airpower entails. Rather, the decisive engagement would occur with ground forces. Because the Bush administration prioritizes two missions in Iraq - disarmament and regime change - ground forces confront three conflicting missions.
First, US troops would need to hunt down Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his high-level associates. Most likely that means encircling large cities, conducting psychological warfare operations, and fighting extraordinarily complex urban warfare in densely populated areas.
Second, US troops must simultaneously begin a nationwide hunt for weapons of mass destruction. However, because Iraq prevented weapons inspectors from monitoring for four years, the US military cannot yet locate these weapons. The quest to disarm Iraq urgently is vital to prevent such weapons being deployed against Israel, thus avoiding a wider regional war. This mission in particular places a high premium on internal Iraqi stability.
Third, in the interests of stability, US ground forces may have to restrain Kurdish and Shiite rebellions in the northern and southern parts of Iraq. Each group strongly desires revenge against Baathist party affiliates of Saddam Hussein. Kurdish independence fervor likely would prompt intervention from Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Shiite forces may also seek direct support from Iran. Ironically, in the name of regime change and disarmament, the US military might find itself aligning against the quest for self-determination from these long-suffering opponents of Saddam Hussein.
Such chaos would likely draw in another group to infiltrate Iraq and hunt for weapons of mass destruction: Al Qaeda. Currently, Iraq and Al Qaeda strongly oppose each other's brand of Islam, and Iraq has little incentive to provide weapons of mass destruction to anyone.
However, if attacked and with nothing to lose, Saddam might give biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaeda operating in a post-invasion chaos. These terrorist groups would then have both the incentive and the means to use such weapons against the United States. Currently, Iraq remains deterred from resorting to this horrific option. After an American attack, that deterrence may evaporate.
The case becomes compelling and immediate for slowing the process and getting UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. For the safety of American troops and its homeland security, the United States requires assessment of where the suspected weapons are before its troops intervene. Even less-than-ideal conditions for weapons inspectors would better secure America's national security than an invasion that leads to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists.
SEAN KAY
Delaware, Ohio
JOSHUA SPERO
North Andover
Sean Kay, an associate professor of politics and government at Ohio Wesleyan University, is a nonresident fellow at the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, D.C. Joshua Spero, assistant professor of political science at Merrimack College, served as senior civilian strategic planner with the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1994 to 2000.
© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company.