The Case for Attacking Iraq, Soon (2002)

New York Sun | about August 30, 2002 | Max Singer

[Ooh-Ah]

When it comes to reasons for removing Saddam Hussein the US has an embarrassment of riches, but fortunately they all lead to the same strategic goal: liberating Iraq by replacing his Baathist totalitarian regime with an Iraqi created government based on the rule of law. The bumper sticker slogan Tom Friedman says is needed is, “free Iraq.”

One source of the apparent uncertainty about President Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq is that people are asking two different kinds of questions: First, are the benefits of removing Saddam (that is, the dangers of not removing him) great enough to justify the dangers and costs of going to war? Second, do we have the right to attack Iraq because we think it will improve our security?

There are three sets of reasons why our security requires removing Saddam. One set of reasons is the danger he presents because of the combination of his growing ability to use biological and nuclear weapons with his hatred of the US and his demonstrated lack of concern for human life. As the President said, it is too dangerous to allow a government with Saddam’s record to have weapons that are so deadly. The New Republic argues this is reason enough; stop there, they say, and don’t confuse the issue with other reasons.

The second set of reasons concerns our effort to induce Arab and Moslem countries to stop harboring terrorist organizations. There is no chance that these countries will feel that they have to meet the needs of our war against terrorism if Saddam is not removed. While Saddam is in power he is an important support for all enemies of the US, and he is also a threat to any government that is inclined to cooperate with us. More important, if the US is not willing to carry out its threat against its greatest enemy, no other country will be afraid that we will act against them if they harbor terrorists. We can forget about winning the war against terrorist organizations if we don’t carry through on our announced determination to remove Saddam.

The third kind of reason for removing Saddam Hussein is his connection to the terrorists who have been attacking the US, especially Al Qaeda. I am not referring to the argument that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent and therefore that Saddam was behind WTC1, or that Mohammed Atta received his instructions from the Iraqi intelligence officer he met in Prague before flying a 767 into the WTC. For the sake of the argument we can assume that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not Iraq, were the moving forces in both WTC bombings, and other attacks against Americans. But there is substantial evidence that Iraq has been a supporter of Al Qaeda for years before and after 9/11, knowing that Al Qaeda was engaged in attacking the US. Deliberately helping an organization like Al Qaeda is an act of war against the US. Of course Iraq is not the only country to help Al Qaeda. They have also been helped by Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and probably Syria. We went after Afghanistan first, somebody must be second; we can’t be required to deal with everybody at the same time.

In a criminal trial the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. No country can afford to use such a standard in deciding who has attacked it and needs to be stopped from attacking again. Some would argue that when three thousand of our citizens are attacked we can and should act against the government we think is probably responsible even if we have little solid evidence – provided that the government is a dictatorship that in other ways speaks and acts like an enemy of the US who would be willing to attack Americans.

Many Americans are not concerned about whether we have a right to attack Iraq just because it is a danger to us, or because we think they attacked us but can’t prove it. They think that in the world as it is our power and our need give us all the right we require, and it is mere soft-headedness to worry about our rights, or about what the UN, or world opinion, or international law has to say. But that is not the policy of President Bush. For both practical and moral reasons the US has to be concerned about its right to take actions that it believes serve its security interests. But the US cannot decide what it has the right to do by listening to every “human rights organization” or armchair moralist. Nor do we have to rely on the UN which it has proved its inability to deal with this problem.

There is an easy way and a hard way to show our right to attack Iraq. The easy way is to emphasize that Iraq is a special case, maybe even a unique case, and therefore our right to attack Iraq isn’t a precedent that needs to make any other country afraid of us. We have already been authorized by the UN in 1991 to go to war with Iraq, and since they have violated the terms of the cease fire in that war it is not over and we have the right to continue it. They are also a country that has committed aggression against its neighbors twice, and used poison gas against both another country and against its own citizens. While the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia may require that we generally ignore what a country does within its borders, they do not make an aggressor completely immune.

But if we don’t want to justify our action on the basis of Iraq’s practically unique “outlaw” status, we could argue, as Henry Kissinger did in the Washington Post recently, that changes in technology and the world require some modification of the Westphalia principles. Where the first attack by a small country against a large one can result in as many as a million deaths, a country that has a reasonable basis for fearing such an attack has the right to act preemptively to prevent it. Or we can argue that our right of self-defense is enough to allow us to do whatever is necessary to compel countries to stop harboring terrorists. These claims are more ambitious than the claim that we have the right to act against Iraq because of what it has done in the past. And we would not apply these arguments to justify an attack against a democracy.

A good case, from the point of view of international law and morality, can be made for even these broader claims, provided that they are not carried to extremes. We would not want to argue that we have the right to attack a country, and certainly not a democracy, just because doing so would give us some small gain in the war against terrorism.

A number of senior Americans, such as Brent Scowcroft, say, in effect, that while removing Saddam may be, or may become essential, we should proceed prudently, making sure that all potentially necessary preparatory steps are taken. Among the concerns of these cautionary graybeards are: agreement of the American people, support from allies, acquiescence from Arab states, building up a large military force, making reliable arrangements for the future governance of Iraq, etc. etc. But trying to get everything doubly assured in advance is the path of bureaucratic comfort, not necessarily the path of prudence. When facing an enemy like Saddam, with the US as vulnerable to terrorist attack as it is, every day’s delay is a danger. There can be little doubt that Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver biological and nuclear weapons increases with time. It is safer to remove him today than it will be tomorrow. Prudence says, “don’t take chances, it is dangerous to delay, go as fast as you can.”

Although it will never be possible to convince all opponents, or to find a risk-free policy, the message the Bush administration has been delivering to the Congress and the American people, and to the world, is very clear. Any leader who waits until he is sure of the results of his actions will never act.

The message is: Saddam is building and in the past has used weapons of mass destruction. He has committed aggression against two of his neighbors, he has attempted to assassinate a former US President (in 1993 in Kuwait), and he actively cooperates with Al Qaeda the terrorist organization that attacked America a number of times. He is not supported by the people – or even the military forces – of his own country, ruling Iraq by totalitarian terror and torture. Because of what he has done in the past we and others have a right to remove him from power. The safety of Americans requires that his regime is removed and Iraq turned over to its people. Because the danger is increasing, and because the war against terrorism cannot proceed in the Middle East until he is removed, the US must act quickly. The US needs to liberate Iraq soon – for our safety, for the Iraqi people, and for the future of the Middle East.

[i_dont_chat]

This third reason deserves repeating:

Reminder: this was published in 2002.

The third kind of reason for removing Saddam Hussein is his connection to the terrorists who have been attacking the US, especially Al Qaeda. I am not referring to the argument that Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi intelligence agent and therefore that Saddam was behind WTC1, or that Mohammed Atta received his instructions from the Iraqi intelligence officer he met in Prague before flying a 767 into the WTC.

For the sake of the argument we can assume that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, not Iraq, were the moving forces in both WTC bombings, and other attacks against Americans. But there is substantial evidence that Iraq has been a supporter of Al Qaeda for years before and after 9/11, knowing that Al Qaeda was engaged in attacking the US. Deliberately helping an organization like Al Qaeda is an act of war against the US.

Of course Iraq is not the only country to help Al Qaeda. They have also been helped by Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and probably Syria. We went after Afghanistan first, somebody must be second; we can’t be required to deal with everybody at the same time.