Desparate measures: How will Saddam react?

Townhall.com ^ | October 11th, 2002 | Jacob Sullum

[Sabertooth]

Jacob Sullum (archive)
(printer-friendly version)

October 11, 2002

Desparate measures: How will Saddam react?

"The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin," President Bush said in his prime-time speech the other day. He described how Saddam Hussein uses "murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family." Under Saddam's orders, "opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured."

All this is appalling, but it has nothing to do with the case for war against Iraq, the ostensible topic of the president's speech. Nor does "the oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis, and others." Likewise, it's irrelevant that "the lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power."

Unless the U.S. has embarked on a military campaign to replace all of the world's brutal dictators with democratically elected, constitutionally constrained tribunes of the people, Saddam's cruelty is not the issue. The fact that the Bush administration keeps bringing it up suggests the weakness of its argument that attacking Iraq would enhance U.S. security.

The president's comparison between Saddam and Stalin raises the question of why the United States never launched a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union. The U.S. chose containment and deterrence over direct confrontation because the risks of war were considered unacceptable.

Iraq's military might, of course, is minuscule compared to that of a nuclear superpower. But if the administration is as worried about Saddam's chemical and biological weapons as it claims to be, why does it seem intent on giving him a motive to use them?

"An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures," Bush conceded. In other words, a U.S. attack is apt to trigger the very threat it is supposed to neutralize, encouraging Saddam to unleash the "horrible poisons and diseases and gases" the president wants to destroy.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or (chemical and biological weapons) against the United States," a recently declassified CIA assessment advises. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

If so, the CIA says, "Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a (weapon of mass destruction) attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." That prospect suggests that a desperate, cornered Saddam is a greater danger to the United States than a Saddam confident of remaining in power.

Explaining the urgency of acting against Iraq now, after 11 years of "defiance, deception, and bad faith" by a regime determined to keep weapons it promised to give up, Bush emphasized the danger brought home by the September 11 attacks. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," he said.

Yet the administration has no evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al Qaeda or is likely to do so. The most plausible scenario in which Saddam would take such a risk is the one outlined by the CIA: as a response to military action that threatens to topple him.

Nor is this the only way in which war with Iraq would promote terrorism. Osama bin Laden's chief grievance against the United States was the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which he saw as an occupation of holy territory by infidels. The thought of how his murderous followers will react to the occupation of another Arab country by American forces should give pause to the Bush administration's hawks.

The U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, a continuing source of outrage to Muslim fanatics, lingers on more than a decade after our last war with Iraq, in which America came to the defense of despots only somewhat less odious than Saddam. American troops may have to stay even longer this time, since the president promises to ensure that Iraq is not only disarmed but transformed into a liberal democracy.

"The first and greatest benefit" of deposing Saddam, the president said, "will come to Iraqi men, women, and children." Maybe, but at what cost to American men, women, and children?

Contact Jacob Sullum | Read his biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[Consort]

And the argument that "Saddam might unleash all his lethal weapons if we attack because he will have nothing to lose" can be applied to other scenarios besides a US attack. For example: if he contracts a fatal desease and is given 4, 5, or 6 months to live, he may let loose with all his weapons. Or, if he gets credible info about a potential palace coup that he won't survive, he might do the same thing.

[Sabertooth]

Are we voting? Three votes to kill the cat

Start a thread, you'll probably get more than that.

[bjcintennessee]

Near the end of the Gulf War, Suddam declared a jihad against the US, a call to every Islamic extremist whacko to collaborate in our destruction. It is my firm belief that the ensuing years have been spent in plotting and planning with terrorists, our annihilation. Why should we wait for the kind of proof "that would stand up in our liberal courts", when we have a reasonable certainty that Suddam would enable terrorists to cross our open borders with a variety of WMD's?

Oops -- I forgot -- that poor despotic dictator claims that he has no weapons of mass destruction!

[Travis McGee]

A paramecium does not annoy an elephant much.

[Finny]

"If there be war, crush the enemy and disarm the survivors!"

Reminds me of my favorite Arnold quote, from "Conan the Barbarian" when Conan is asked, "What are the best things in life?"

Replies warrior Conan: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women."

God protect and bless with victory Dubya, Cheney, and all brave American warriors.

-- Finfreak

[Finny]

Or, as Tom Clancy has written:

The noblest of ideas have always been protected by warriors.

[The Great Satan]

I believe there was a thus far unpublicized credible threat of an anthrax attack on White House personnel on September 11th, 2001. Why else administer Cipro?

The truth is, the anthrax follow-up was a no-brainer. It was immediately obvious to Team Bush who was behind the WTC attack. I mean, let's be real: aside from Iraq, what other countries were we in a state of war with on 9/11/01? The only WMD we know Saddam has at his disposal that is scary enough to deter the United States from retaliating is -- you've guessed it -- anthrax. There could well have been a specific, unpublicized threat, but it is by no means necessary to invoke one to explain the Cipro.

If you are familiar with the shape and direction of the US biodefense program since the Gulf War, you will understand that it has been primarily motivated by the scenario of Saddam launching a massive, clandestine terror attack on the US and backing it up with biowarfare blackmail. Which, of course, is exactly what happened last year. People usually do see threats coming and understand their own vulnerabilities -- for example, the French high command knew perfectly well that the Maginot Line was useless against Hitler -- but the reality is, until they happen, most people would rather think about something else.

[Prodigal Son]

How will Saddam react? I figure him for one of those B Movie melodramatists- he'll probably lurch around with his hands clutching his chest. He'll probably yell "Argghh! They got me!" Then he'll fall down. While he's down he'll probably give his emotional last words and close his eyes. His minions will start to weep then Saddam's eyes will pop back open and he'll say "And one more thing..." Repeat several times until he loses enough blood to truly give up the ghost.

[mhking]

"Here come the planes...
They're American planes,
Made in America.
Smoking?
Or non-smoking..."

[MortMan]

I don't care what others think about your kitty - I like it. On early mornings, though, it sometimes makes me yawn (a sympathy yawn:-).

[wny]

"But if we land at Normandy, Hitler may become much less constrained and might decide that the extreme step of an attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. A desperate, cornered Hitler is a greater danger to the United States than a Hitler confident of remaining in power."

A quote by an unknown idiot democrat, 1944

[Sabertooth]

There could well have been a specific, unpublicized threat, but it is by no means necessary to invoke one to explain the Cipro.

If you are familiar with the shape and direction of the US biodefense program since the Gulf War, you will understand that it has been primarily motivated by the scenario of Saddam launching a massive, clandestine terror attack on the US and backing it up with biowarfare blackmail. Which, of course, is exactly what happened last year.

Are you suggesting that, in the event of a massive (though not biological) terror attack, there was a protocol to dispense preemptive doses of Cipro to White House staff?

Possible, I suppose. I still lean towards the credible anthrax threat on 9/11 scenario.

In any event, as you said, both point to Saddam.

[doug from upland]

Another foolish Libertarian. At least in California, Larry Elder read a piece from the Calif. Libertarian leader (who says he was speaking for himself) who has totally distanced himself from the indefensible position of Harry Browne.

[Sabertooth]

Another foolish Libertarian.

Their foreign-policy myopia was one of the reasons I gave up on the Libertarians back in 1990, or so. Took me another couple of years to register GOP, where I've been ever since.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[MeekOneGOP]

_____________________________

Rummy, you tell 'em to keep sifting the dirt for Osama. Next up? SADdam ! Let's get him!

[MeekOneGOP]

With the first bombing runs, Saddam will shoot one of his doubles in the head and have one of his aides run the poor bastard out to the cameras for the world to see ... 'We've killed him so you can stop now.'.....

Perhaps. He not above doing any "lower than whalesh** " act, imho....

I expect the first thing he will likely do is use chemical weapon, etc. on his own people and then claim that the U.S. is using chemical weapons. Or some such propaganda....

[Dec31,1999]

My 9th grade English teacher once told me...Sometimes you're really good and sometimes you really stink. LOL! I can see the veracity in her opinion now. It's true.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Which part of what she told you is true?
that you are really good?
or that you really stink?

Still in ninth grade? Still good? or still stinky?

[okie01]

At least some White House personnel were given Cipro six weeks ago."

"Why else administer Cipro?"

Pre-packed medical kits were issued to White House personnel per prescribed emergency contingency plans.

These kits doubtless contained Cipro, an all-purpose anti-biotic...along with aspirin, etc.

Thus, there isn't necessarily a connection between the immediate issuance of Cipro and the eventual anthrax mailings.

Note that the article states they were "given Cipro", not that they had "taken Cipro".