By Dr. Dan Caldwell
Political Science Professor
On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell powerfully presented evidence that Iraq has violated a number of United Nations resolutions and is currently developing, storing and deploying weapons of mass destruction. Does the evidence that Secretary Powell presented justify an American invasion of Iraq?
I believe that there are compelling reasons that the United States and its supporters should not invade Iraq at the present time.
First, considering the threats that we now face, Iraq is not the most dangerous. On Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda killed more Americans than were killed at Pearl Harbor. At the end of January, the German security chief said that al Qaeda is as strong and as much of a threat as it was on Sept. 11. Just yesterday, the FBI issued a report indicting that it believes that al Qaeda poses the greatest security threat to the United States. In short, terrorists pose a greater threat to both the United States and Europe than Iraq.
And then, of course, there is the threat from North Korea, which has admitted that it has been working on nuclear weapons and may even have several. Most experts — conservative and liberal, Republican and Democratic — believe that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, but not nuclear weapons. This makes North Korea more of an immediate threat than Iraq.
We should deal with terrorism and North Korea first, and then worry about Iraq.
The second reason that we should not attack Iraq is that we need the cooperation of other countries to effectively combat the threats that now confront us. Terrorism can only be defeated with the cooperation of other states, particularly Islamic countries. If the United States were to attack Iraq, the cooperation of other countries would be significantly reduced.
In the Gulf War of 1990-1991, the United States had more than 30 coalition partners in its effort against Saddam Hussein. That partially accounts for the success of the U.S.-led operation. In the current crisis, the United States is only supported unequivocally by the United Kingdom and Kuwait. If tangible evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is uncovered by the United Nations inspectors, other countries will support stronger measures, even including an invasion of Iraq, if necessary. Time will buy the United States allies and strength. If an attack on Iraq proves necessary, an international coalition similar to that of the Gulf War is in the United States’ best interest.
A third reason that now is not the time to attack Iraq is that Saddam Hussein can be deterred from using his military forces, including weapons of mass destruction. We know unequivocally from the UN inspections that took place from 1991-1998 that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War. Why, then, faced with a humiliating defeat, did Saddam not use them?
If Saddam understands anything, it is power. The United States remains the single most powerful country in the world, and Saddam understands that. This reality was brought home to Saddam during the Gulf War when then Secretary of State James Baker told Iraqi officials that the United States would use any weapons in its arsenal if Iraq were to use chemical or biological weapons. Significantly, Iraq refrained from using these weapons in the face of this threat.
A fourth reason that we should not attack Iraq now is related to the unpredictability and uncertainty of war. In almost every war, there are unintended consequences. Certainly, that was the case in World Wars I and II. The world’s leaders in 1914 thought that the war would be over in months; instead it lasted four years and was the most costly war in human history, up to that time. What Japanese leader could have foreseen that the attack on Pearl Harbor would end with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
The attacks of Sept. 11 also had significant unintended consequences. In New York, the terrorists’ objective was to bring down the Twin Towers and to kill as many Americans as possible. They did not have in mind crippling the U.S. economy, but the Sept. 11 attacks had this result. Prior to Sept. 11, who would have thought that United Airlines would be bankrupt and other U.S. airlines would be on the brink of bankruptcy?
An attack on Iraq could also result in several important unintended consequences. For example, the Arab country bordering Israel is Jordan, which currently has a moderate government. Its population of 5 million, however, is 60 percent Palestinian and almost 10 percent Iraqi. An attack on Iraq would almost certainly destabilize Jordan sending shock waves throughout the Middle East region.
Any attack on Iraq would most likely result in an attack on Israel. During the Gulf War, Iraq attacked Israel with 39 SCUD missiles. Saddam would do the same or worse this time around, and unlike 1991, the government of Israel would not refrain from counter-attacking. Such an Israeli attack would further inflame the Middle East, possibly for generations.
Consider these facts: terrorism, not Iraq, is the most serious threat that we face at the present time; we need the cooperation of other countries to effectively meet this threat; Saddam is deterable; and, there are a number of very significant unintended consequences in attacking Iraq. For these reasons, we should not attack Iraq at the present time.
– Dan Caldwell, a former officer in the U.S. Navy, is distinguished professor of political science and most recently the author of “World Politics and You.”
February 06, 2004