From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri Aug 16 2002 - 23:02:10 MDT
In recent weeks President George W. Bush and his policy advisors
have alluded to invading Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein. In
the months to come, this policy will most likely receive increasing
consideration. Such an action no doubt has its supporters inside
Washington policy circles, but has yet to garner any support from
the United States' allies involved in the war in Afghanistan.
Strikingly, this policy debate has received marginal attention at
best in the U.S. media, most likely because Bush has repeatedly
expressed his desire to keep the United States focused on its
current mission in Afghanistan. Given the multitude of difficulties
associated with possible U.S. action against Iraq, however, the
United States must immediately open serious debate on this
subject.
An overthrow of Saddam Hussein clearly has its advantages. Most
notable, but frequently most forgotten, is the help that this would
bring to the people of Iraq. Opponents of the ongoing sanctions
regime, including most Arab states, Russia, and France to name a
few, speak at length of the suffering that sanctions have brought to
the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, however, they generally forget to
address the fact that the optimal solution for Iraqi citizens would
be a new government in Baghdad. Should the United States
decide to finish the work it began in 1991, it would save the Iraqi
people from the malnutrition, lack of medicine, and widespread
human rights abuses they have endured since the end of the Gulf
War.
Overthrowing Saddam would bring security advantages as well.
To date the United States has no indisputable evidence that
Saddam's nuclear weapons program has achieved its objectives.
Without the presence of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, however,
knowing with certainty how much progress he has made to this
end is nearly impossible. The mere thought of a nuclear Iraq
should conjure enough fear among Americans that the United
States at least consider the need for forceful military action.
Furthermore, Iraq has long been identified as a state that harbors
terrorists, thus placing it squarely within the scope of United
States' new war that Bush first outlined to the nation on the night
of September 11.
The difficulties associated with an attempted ousting of Saddam,
however, are glaring and significant. Most importantly, because
the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the Iraqi version of the
Northern Alliance, does not have a stronghold inside the country
like the Northern Alliance enjoyed in Afghanistan, the United
States would require a friendly neighboring state from which to
mount a ground invasion of Iraq. Moreover, in contrast to the
Northern Alliance, the INC does not have the support of Iraq's
neighbors, posing some serious problems.
Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia border Iraq.
The only realistic options from which to mount a military
operation are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In the former, the ruling
Saud family has experienced significant civil tension as of late,
and has increasingly had to justify its cozy relationship with the
United States to its people. Given this, the ramifications for Saudi
Arabia's monarchy of allowing the use of its border for an
invasion of a neighboring Arab state could be disastrous. As for
Turkey, using its border would most likely come at the price of
guaranteed U.S. opposition to Kurdish separatist movements.
Washington will be hard pressed to offer such a promise.
These are just some of the practical problems. One cannot forget
how such an operation would undoubtedly augment the civil
unrest that has emerged in the region since the U.S.-led war
against Afghanistan began, most likely leading to new and
escalated rounds of terrorist attacks against the United States,
which would quite likely be alone in this operation against Iraq.
Americans may be unwilling to accept that right now, and
legitimately so.
If the United States is seriously considering military action against
Iraq as the next step in its war against terrorism, it must
immediately begin a serious and honest debate on the subject.
Americans must recognize that this operation will be very
different from both the current mission in Afghanistan as well the
1991 Gulf War when the United States enjoyed allied support and
did not advance to Baghdad. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein is
certainly not impossible, but if Americans fail to comprehend the
complexities of such a mission, they risk naively embroiling
themselves in a conflict with repercussions they never fully
considered or understood.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:54 MDT