It appears that time has finally run out for Saddam. The lies, games and deception will be coming to an end, and probably so will his life. Many countries and their populations have expressed significant opposition to military action against Iraq. A large portion of our own population has expressed opposition. So why has it come to this?
Those who claim that war is not the answer fail to come up with an alternative answer that is realistic. If military action is unnecessary, then how should the problem of Saddam be addressed?
There are two main arguments for why Saddam Hussein is a problem. First, it is undeniable that Saddam is seeking weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. While he may not have a nuclear weapon today, the world faces a grave danger when (not if) Saddam procures a nuclear weapon.
The second reason that Saddam Hussein is a problem is due to his horrific rape, murder and torture of tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of his own people. The United Nations and human rights organizations have undeniable proof of "rape rooms" used by Saddam's henchman to rape the wives and even children of dissidents while they are forced to watch. Electric shock torture is administered to male genitalia. Men are fed through machines normally used to shred plastic. The list is endless, and the details are gruesome.
If war is not the answer to these problems, then let's look at the alternatives. The following analysis more or less summarizes some main issues in The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack. It is undoubtedly the best book written about the Iraq crisis by the foremost expert on Iraq.
Containment
Containment is the current policy that is being employed to deal with Iraq. It involves a combination of economic sanctions, disarmament, and inspections. While this policy showed initial promise, it is currently failing miserably. The oil-for-food program set up by the United Nations to try to ensure that Saddam spends his money only on food for his people is being abused.
Iraq has also started selling oil to countries illegally and pocketing the profits. For example, it is widely known that Iraq sells approximately 100,000 barrels of oil each day to Jordan outside of the United Nations food-for-oil agreement.
Smuggling has also become a significant problem. It is estimated that Iraq brings in as much as $2 or $3 billion dollars annually from illegal smuggling with several different countries. Intelligence agencies have found evidence of smuggled goods sold to Iraq from countries that include France, Russia, China and Germany.
Containment can also only work effectively if Saddam is making an effort to comply with disarmament. It has become very clear over the last twelve years that the exact opposite has occurred. Saddam has made every effort to continue building his weapons rather than destroying them.
Finally, inspections seem to be the magic bullet for the peace crowd, including the mighty French. Unfortunately, our success with inspections has been marginal at best. Saddam Hussein appears to be the only person who believes that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction. He has become a master of deception in playing a shell game with inspectors for twelve years. Inspectors from other countries have also been shown to lie and even help Saddam cover up his non-compliance. Inspections are only effective in confirming the destruction of weapons and are quite useless in searching out those weapons.
Containment has had limited success with Saddam, and it will only serve to delay, not stop him. This policy also does not address the torture, rape and murder that are committed against the people of Iraq. Experience shows us that containment is no longer a viable option.
Deterrence
Deterrence is a popular approach by many countries for dealing with Iraq. This policy entails removing all sanctions against Iraq and simply allowing it to operate as it wishes within its own borders. The idea is that deterrence with Saddam would work similarly to the way it worked with the former Soviet Union. Even though Saddam will eventually achieve nuclear capabilities under this scenario, he knows that nuclear weapons would be used against him and would never be foolish enough to use them.
Unfortunately, Saddam has a long history of making serious miscalculations in judgment about the consequences of his actions. While Saddam is not insane or irrational, he is delusional when it comes to estimating the response of other parties to his actions. He made serious miscalculations when attacking Iran, Kuwait, and then threatening Kuwait again in 1998. He has even seriously miscalculated the reaction of the United States with his current refusal to disarm.
The point is that Saddam will be a significant danger if he ever gets his hands on a nuclear weapon. It is almost guaranteed that he would feel that possession of such a weapon would give him leverage to invade other countries because of his threat to use nuclear force against Israel or to destroy the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. Would we be willing to sacrifice Tel-Aviv to save Kuwait again? Saddam doesn't think so.
The reason countries like France, Russia and China like the idea of deterrence is due to their close economic ties to Saddam. Removing the sanctions on Iraq will allow them to make even more money by selling military and missile technology to Saddam that were previously banned. However, the policy of deterrence would be a serious mistake that would result in grave consequences for the United States and for the Middle East. And this doesn't even take into consideration that this policy will actually make life for Iraqis even worse than it is already. The Kurds would no longer be protected by "no fly zones", which have prevented Saddam from committing genocide on his own people.
Assassination
Why can't we just assassinate Saddam and avoid a bloody war? Saddam is paranoid to an extreme and has taken every possible precaution to avoid the risk of assassination. He has foiled multiple coup attempts over the past several years that even included trusted Generals and other senior military officials.
The question also arises about what happens after Saddam is killed. Saddam's sons or equally evil military leaders could easily step in and pick up where he left off. Our situation with Iraq could actually become worse, not better, if certain individuals came to power after Saddam was eliminated.
So Where Does That Leave Us?
Unfortunately, that leaves us with the option of invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. While not an ideal situation, it is the most logical remedy to a situation that will only get much worse under alternative scenarios. Regardless of whether or not you believe we are justified in liberating the Iraqi people from a truly evil dictator, no one can deny that allowing Saddam to possess nuclear weapons would prove disastrous to the free world.
Continuing to delay and twiddle our thumbs, while Saddam shows no sign of compliance with disarmament, only delays the inevitable and significantly increases our risk of removing him from power when he is much stronger militarily.
Comments