Don't Start the Second Gulf War

President George W. Bush says that he hasn't made up his mind about "any of our policies in regard to Iraq," but he obviously has. To not attack after spending months talking about the need for regime change is inconceivable. Unfortunately, war is not likely to be the simple and certain procedure that he and many others seem to think.

Lots of arguments have been offered on behalf of striking Baghdad that are not reasons at all. For instance, that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has brutalized his own people.

Certainly true. But the world is full of brutal regimes that have murdered their own people. Indeed, Washington ally Turkey's treatment of its Kurds is scarcely more gentle than Iraq's Kurdish policies.

Moreover, the U.S. warmly supports the royal kleptocracy next door in Saudi Arabia, fully as totalitarian, if not quite as violent, as Saddam's government. Any non-Muslim and most women would probably prefer living in Iraq.

Also cited is Baghdad's conquest of Kuwait a dozen years ago. It is a bit late to drag that out as a justification for invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam. He is far weaker today and has remained firmly contained.

Richard Butler, former head of the U.N. Commission on Iraq, complained to the Senate Foreign Relations that Iraq had violated international law by tossing out arms inspectors. In fact, there are often as many reasons to flout as to obey U.N. rules. Washington shouldn't go to war in some abstract pursuit of "international law."

Slightly more plausible, at least, is the argument that creating a democratic system in Iraq would provide a useful model for the rest of the Mideast. But that presupposes democracy can be easily planted, and that it can survive once the U.S. departs.

Iraq suffers from significant internal stresses. Convenient professions of unity in pursuit of democracy from an opposition once dismissed by Mideast special envoy and retired Gen. Anthony Zinni as "silk-suited, Rolex-wearing guys in London" offer little comfort and are likely to last no longer than have similar promises in Afghanistan.

Also problematic are Kurdish demands for autonomy and Shiite Muslim resistance to the central government. One defense official told the Washington Post: "I think it is almost a certainty that we'd wind up doing a campaign against the Kurds and Shiites." Wouldn't that be pretty? <

There are external threats as well. Particularly worrisome would be covert and possibly overt action by Iran, with which Baghdad fought a decade-long war and which might see intervention against a weakened Iraq as an antidote to serious political unrest at home.

Indeed, the U.S. backed Baghdad in its conflict with Iran and decided not to depose Saddam in 1991, in part out of fear of Iranian aggression throughout the Gulf should Iraq no longer provide a blocking role. Keeping the Iraqi Humpty Dumpty together after a war might not be easy.

Moreover, while Americans might see America's war on Iraq as a war for democracy, most Arabs would likely see it as a war for Washington. If the U.S. deposes Saddam, but leaves in place friendly but despotic regimes elsewhere — such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — few Arabs would take America's democracy rhetoric seriously. Nor should they. Yet to go to war against everyone, including presumably Iran, Syria, and maybe others, would have incalculable consequences.

Saddam's complicity in September 11 would present a good argument for devastating retaliation for an act of war, but there's no evidence that he was involved. All that exists is a disputed meeting, which might not have occurred, in the Czech Republic between hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi official.

Certainly Saddam shed no tears over the thousands who died on that tragic day, but he has never been known to promote groups which he does not control. In contrast to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein is no Muslim fanatic looking forward to his heavenly rewards; moreover, he heads a government and nation against which retaliation is simple.

Probably the best, at least the most fearsome, argument for overthrowing Saddam is the prospect of Baghdad developing weapons of mass destruction. Yet if nonproliferation should be enforced by war, Washington will be very busy in the coming years.

The problem is not just countries like Iran and North Korea, which seem to have or have had serious interest in developing atomic weapons. It is China, which could use them in any conflict with the U.S. over, say, Taiwan. And India, Pakistan, and Russia, which face unpredictable nationalist and theological currents, enjoy governments of varying instability, and offer uncertain security over technical know-how as well as weapons.

Potentially most dangerous is Pakistan's arsenal. The government of Pervez Musharraf is none too steady; Islamabad long supported the Taliban and its military and intelligence forces almost certainly contain al Qaeda sympathizers. It is easy to imagine nuclear technology falling into terrorist hands.

An Iraqi nuclear capability seems less frightening in comparison. Saddam would not use them against America, since to do so would guarantee his incineration. Israel possesses a similarly overbearing deterrent.

Would Baghdad turn atomic weapons over to al Qaeda or similarly motivated terrorists? Not likely.

First, it would be extraordinary for Saddam to give up a technology purchased at such a high price. Second, Baghdad would be the immediate suspect and likely target of retaliation should any terrorist deploy nuclear weapons, and Saddam knows this.

Third, Saddam would be risking his own life. Al Qaeda holds secular Arab dictators in contempt and would not be above attempting to destroy them as well as America.

Of course, the world would be a better place without Saddam's dictatorship. But there are a lot of regimes that should, and eventually will, end up in history's dustbin. That's not a good reason to initiate war against a state which poses no direct, ongoing threat.

Especially since war often creates unpredictable consequences. Without domestic opposition military forces to do America's dirty work, Washington will have to bear most of the burden. The task will be more difficult and expensive without European support and Saudi staging grounds.

If Iraq's forces don't quickly crumble, the U.S. might find itself involved in urban conflict that will be costly in human and political terms. If Baghdad possesses any weapons of mass destruction, Saddam will have an incentive to use them — against America, Israel, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia — since Washington would be dedicated to his overthrow.

Further, the U.S. would be sloshing gasoline over a combustible political situation in friendly but undemocratic Arab regimes stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia. Israelis and Palestinians are at war, America continues to fight Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan as the pro-western government teeters on chaos, fundamentalist Muslims rule western Pakistan, and Muslim extremists are active a dozen other countries. Yet the administration wants to invade Iraq. Riots in Egypt, a fundamentalist rising in Pakistan, a spurt of sectarian violence in Indonesia, and who knows what else could pose a high price for any success in Iraq.

War is a serious business. Making war on a country which does not threaten the U.S. is particularly serious. Even if the optimists who think a campaign against Iraq would be easy are right, and we can only hope they are, war should be a last resort. As House Majority Leader Richard Armey warned, an unprovoked attack "would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation."

There's certainly no hurry to go to war. Nothing is different today from September 10, 2001, or any time since Iraq was ousted from Kuwait. Observes Jim Cornette, formerly an expert in biological warfare with the Air Force: "We've bottled [Saddam] up for 11 years, so we're doing okay."

There are times when Washington has no choice but to fight. Iraq is not such a place and now is not such a time.

— Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

Quite the contrary, I have been one of President Bush's most ardent supporters in regard to his conduct of the war against terrorism. Perhaps, I misspoke myself. I think that the President is doing a great job waging war against Islamicist terrorist murderers! My dissent with his policies is limited to third-rate power Iraq, which I do not believe poses a threat to the US. Iraq has had WMD for the past 20 years. Why then has it not used such weapons against the US or its allies before? If it poses such a deadly threat to the US, why is it that Iraq is unable to shoot down one single US fighter-bomber during the past four years of weekly bombings against it? Is it because Saddam is exercising tremendous self-restraint or could it be because he lacks the capability to do so. These are the questions which thinking conservatives should be asking.

I appreciate your honest response. Thanks. I cannot disagree with you about Saddam Insane. However, as someone else just posted, I think Saddam is diverting attention away from the war on actual TERRORISTS. I would support his early demise if Dubya just stopped his empire-building and put a bounty on him. And asked Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal to anyone who wanted to try collecting the bounty. Hells bells, if there were a billion bucks on his nasty head, I'd find a backer, get some trusty folks to go along and try it myself. AND it would be cheaper and not divert Dubya from the actual ENEMY here: the actual planners and plotters of 9-11...

This from http://www.terrorismfiles.org/countries/iraq.html
< snip >
Several expatriate terrorist groups continued to maintain offices in Baghdad, including the Arab Liberation Front, the inactive 15 May Organization, the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO). PLF leader Abu `Abbas appeared on state-controlled television in the fall to praise Iraq's leadership in rallying Arab opposition to Israeli violence against Palestinians. The ANO threatened to attack Austrian interests unless several million dollars in a frozen ANO account in a Vienna bank were turned over to the group.
< snip >

Re: your post #401, I proudly support 100% of everything that JimRob posted.

Oh, really? Well isn't that something......

Well, I'll put it this way, this web site supports President Bush, supports our national defense efforts (including the war on terrorism), end snip of Jim Robinson quote

Now back to that Iraqi thing you are supporting in our national defense efforts.......

I think Reagan had a lot more strategic sense about what did and what did not pose a threat to this country and what did and did not advance the US national security interest than that.

Was Libya a clear and present danger to America? If so, why? They did not have the CB arsenal that Iraq has.

And what about Grenada? Good men lost their lives there. Did they possess CB weapons? Did they preach jihad against America? Did they harbor Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal or the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)?

The old "if you are not a combat vet you can not speak on the subject" play.

I never said anything like that. The poster refered to himself as the "we" part when advocating an attack. I merely point out that it is easier to be rah rah about combat when you aren't going to be involved. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and has a right to state it. Even people who go around saying things like "we are going to kick ass", when they are not part of the "we".

As a Viet Nam Combat vet,

As a combat vet, you should be happy that some guy includes himself with you even though it was your ass getting shot at while he was banging away on the pc? I find that to be a curious opinion.

I have seen your kind, working against American troops, every since the peace movement of the 1970s.

You know nothing whatsoever about me. I have never worked against American troops, in any way shape or form. For you to say that is despicable.

During the Viet Nam war, the American people did not fully understand the peace movement, and some fell for their propaganda. Well buddy, this is no longer the 1970s, Lyndon Johnson is not in the White House, and we have all seen what happens when the peace movement gets its way.

I am not part of any peace movement, now or then. PS, we ain't buddies.

I guessed you must have missed the front page story about Saddam Hussein having assasinated Abu Nidal who was probably the second most vile anti-American terrorist in the world (behind Bin Laden).

Guess again.

And why do you suppose that Hussein decided at this moment in time to off Abu Nidal, Mr Mensa?

I believe as the threat of war intensifies, One of Saddam's Generals will execute him and all of his family as well as his closest advisors. The Iraqi National Congress is prepared to move in and set up a representative Government.

I say this only because of Saddam's history of killing any general that he feels is a threat. Generals, like any other leader, appreciate their troops and those Generals understand very well what they are up against if we decide to use force against Saddam. I hope the CIA has managed to infiltrate Saddam's Military and are ready to serve this mad man the justice he deserves.

The day Saddam falls is the day Iran's revolution will begin. Iran's youth are very close to rising up and removing their oppressor's. Saddam will represent the "Domino" affect in the Mid East. Human nature is to be free and history has shown what happens to dictators and oppressors

IIRC, we have some areas of disagreement, but your salute is accepted with thanks. I served because it was, for me, the right thing to do. I hope that those serving now will have leadership worthy of them and their willingness to give that "Last, Full Measure of Devotion" to their comrades and country. A leadership that will NOT squander their lives to no purpose or to the purpose of building an empire that we are NOT. My generation of warriors was betrayed by politicians who led us into a war we were never MEANT to win. Our sons now serving should never have that monkey on their backs.

How exactly does launching an unprovoked attack against non-threat Iraq constitute "furthering our national defense efforts?" Answer is that it doesn't. It has a lot more to do about Dubya's desire to save Bush Sr.'s legacy. However, given the fact that Bush Sr. was until recently sending his top people out to publicly chide his son for preparing to attack Iraq, it seems that the current President Bush is getting this one wrong.

Re: "and not divert Dubya from the actual ENEMY here: the actual planners and plotters of 9-11 . ."

While I would agree that it's not accurate to describe the Iraqi regime as "planners and plotters of 9-11" untill we have more information, I would put forth that "Iraq" and "terrorism" are not mutually exclusive.

Saddom activly, willingly, intentionaly, despite overwhelming international presure, supports terrorism against us and our allies, and I think we have an obligation to live up to our promise to defeat terrorism no matter where it hides, or what label is slapped on it.

You are a GOLDSTAR mother. I salute you and pray for the safety of your son and the rest of our men and women in service to our country.

The anti-war crowd, now, is the same as during Nam. They don't care a whit about this nation, her people, nor what seperates us from all other civilizations. They have no comprehension, as to what is needed now or ever. That those here, imagine that they are even a tiny bit Conservative, proves just how delusional they are. Pay them no mind.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.