Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Schanzer
As US President George Bush prepares to depose Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein, American nay-sayers have emerged in opposition. Notably, Brent Scowcroft, a close colleague of Bush's father, counsels "don't attack Saddam" for fear that this would "undermine our anti-terror efforts".
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, however, did the right thing when he offered Australia's support for a prospective American military campaign. Here's why it's urgent to take this step.
- Record. Hussein has a history of aggression. He invaded Iran in 1980. He conquered Kuwait in 1990. He assaulted Saudi Arabia and Israel with missiles in 1991. He blew up the Kuwait oil fields later that year. He's shot at US and British aircraft in the no-fly zone since 1992. He attacked the Kurdish regional enclave in 1996.
He is also linked to terrorism. Iraq harbours Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the gang that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. It also hosted the notorious Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, just found dead in Baghdad. He encourages Hamas suicide bombers by paying US$10,000 ($18,500) to their families. His terrorists tried to assassinate former US President George Bush Snr and the Emir of Kuwait. An Iraqi diplomat met Al Qaeda's Mohammad Atta before the September 11 suicide mission.
- Casus belli. Hussein has a history of violating international law and developing illegal weapons. In February 1991, he signed an agreement accepting all UN Security Council resolutions passed after his invasion of Kuwait seven months earlier. He recognised Resolution 687, which demands Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) be "destroyed, removed or rendered harmless", and requires inspectors be allowed into Iraq.
But Hussein then played cat and mouse with the inspectors. "Iraq released detailed records of how many ballpoint pens it ordered in the late 1980s," notes a US Government report, but left out vital information about its "missile warheads capable of delivering biological and chemical agents."
Nonetheless, over seven years, inspectors did destroy at least 27,000 chemical weapons, 500 tonnes of mustard and nerve agents and thousands of tonnes of precursor chemicals. They dissembled much of Iraq's nuclear program, which had continued in violation of Resolution 687.
- Dangers. Hussein has unquestionably used the past four years to build WMD. Adnan Saeed al-Haideri, an Iraqi civil engineer and a recent defector, informed American intelligence that Hussein was building WMD in eight locations throughout Iraq.
Khidhir Hamza, former chief nuclear scientist for Hussein's nuclear weapons development program and another Iraqi defector, estimates Iraq now has "12 tonnes of uranium and 1.3 tonnes of low-enriched uranium", giving Hussein "three to five nuclear weapons by 2005".
Australian Richard Butler, former chief UN weapons inspector, says it is "foolish in the extreme" to believe that Hussein is not hard at work on WMD. If Hussein does get his hands on nuclear weapons, he will exploit them fully. He is the only ruler in power to have used WMD having deployed poison gases against both Iranians and his own Kurdish population.
Bush rightly states that the world must "confront the worst threats before they emerge". How can anyone recommend waiting until Iraq has nuclear weapons – and uses them – before defusing this problem?
The argument for pre-emption is compelling. Australia should support and join an American military campaign to oust Hussein.
Alice Mahon
A high-cost, high-risk strategy like war on Iraq deserves positive answers to two questions. Why is it necessary? And what are its likely consequences? The US's approach is unconvincing on both counts.
George Bush tell us the casus belli is Iraq's potential to deploy weapons of mass destruction and its links with terrorism. All such weapons are of the greatest concern (including America's own nuclear armoury). But the majority of Western experts agrees that Iraq does not possess them. This includes such authorities as former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who resigned in 1998 after seven years of service saying Iraq's ability to produce mass destruction weapons had been completely removed.
Ritter visited the British Parliament recently to explain not only that there was no case for believing Iraq has these weapons, but it would also be inconceivable for the regime to develop them without the West becoming aware this was happening.
He points out, too, that there is no reason for presuming Iraq has terrorist connections.
Ritter is no bleeding heart when it comes to the question of Saddam Hussein. He is a card-carrying Republican and an ex-marine of 12 years' service that includes the Gulf War.
Bush, on the other hand, has been unable to come up with a shred of hard evidence to substantiate either claim. No doubt this helps account for the growing number of American politicians, including some loyal to the President, who are beginning to question his strategy.
Unsurprisingly, the threat of invasion prompted Iraq to open negotiations about re-establishing weapons inspection. On each occasion, the option of a non-military resolution has been rebuffed by the US.
If Bush is concerned about of weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't he jump at the chance to send monitors back in? The imbalance of power between Washington and Baghdad means he could virtually dictate the terms. Instead, he has indicated that American wants to attack regardless.
Iraq is a broken-backed state. Military action is simply not necessary. Should it take place, a number of undesirable consequences is likely to follow.
First, and perhaps most strategically important, would be another nail knocked in the coffin of international law. No UN mandate exists for such action and the Security Council shows no signs of bestowing it.
Second, military action would destabilise the region. The Arab street is disaffected enough over Bush's failure to broker an end to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory, without the US trying to determine who governs Iraq.
Last, but not least, military action would harm the Iraqi people. War is a bloody business and civilians are the main casualties of modern warfare. Another generation of Iraqi women and children can expect to pay the price of US action.
In Europe, as in Australia, there is significant opposition to war. No matter how unpleasant Saddam Hussein may be, Iraq offers little threat to the outside world and a growing number of public figures is beginning to say so.
In Britain these range from the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury to a former chief of defence staff, and include nine of the country's most senior trade unionists. Successive opinion polls show a majority against US-led action.
As early as March, a parliamentary motion of mine attracted significant cross-party support and helped express the growing opposition to military action.
War on Iraq would be neither legal nor moral; nor would it resolve the issues it purports to address.
The West is in urgent need of a fundamental change in policy towards the Middle East.
Now is a good time to assert the primacy of political and diplomatic solutions.
