Posted on 09/24/2002 4:15:15 PM PDT by knighthawk
It is not seriously disputed that Saddam Hussein would like to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Indeed, prior to the Gulf War he had acquired all but the last category, as United Nations arms inspectors later confirmed. Had Israeli jets not destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor a decade earlier, he might have completed the set.
Similarly, it is not seriously disputed that Saddam, more than idly desiring the technologies of mass death, has been working furiously to develop them, to the detriment of certain other concerns, such as feeding his people. Again, the evidence of UN arms inspectors is conclusive, both in what they found and in what they were not permitted to see, before they were at last compelled to leave the country.
Finally, it is not seriously disputed that Saddam, were he to acquire such weapons, would not hesitate to use them -- not, at any rate, out of any moral scruple. That does not mean that he would, necessarily, but that were he to threaten to do so, he would have to be taken seriously. The Iraqi dictator may not be mad by certain definitions, but as the author of more than a million deaths in two wars already, not to mention the deaths of thousands of his own people by poison gas, his taste for mass murder cannot be doubted.
The only issue of fact on which there is serious dispute is whether Saddam has, in fact, weapons of mass destruction, or if not, how close he is to acquiring them. Again, there is ample reason to think that he already has stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, not least being the considerable quantities of these that were known to exist but were unaccounted for at the time of the UN inspectors' departure. As for nuclear capacity, the most authoritative research, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, estimates that Saddam is perhaps months away from it, depending on whether he can purchase fissile material from abroad. But, to be fair, no one knows for sure.
So the argument over whether there is sufficient justification for military action to depose Saddam -- not over the practical difficulties of an invasion, but the moral basis for it -- boils down to this: Whether it is better to act to neutralize the threat posed by Saddam before it comes to fruition, as George Bush proposes, or whether the United States and its allies should wait until Saddam actually possesses such weapons before responding. Even then, some critics maintain that Saddam would not pose a threat, or not to the United States, lacking a ballistic missile system of sufficient range.
Readers will think I am caricaturing the critics' position. I assure you I am not. Take Richard Gwyn, The Toronto Star's eminent international affairs columnist, and surely one of the more reasonable of the anti-war voices. In recent columns, Mr. Gwyn has suggested that "U.S. justifications for invading Iraq are exceedingly flimsy," since "no evidence exists that he has any nuclear bombs." Not only that, but any chemical and biological weapons he had a decade ago "would have long since lost all potency." And besides, "he has no missiles to deliver weapons of mass destruction."
Mr. Gwyn also suggests, heroically, that "no evidence exists that Saddam's had any dealings with terrorists," which would be news to, for example Abu Nidal, the man who, before Osama bin Laden, was once the world's most wanted terrorist. That is to say, it would be news, had Saddam not had him assassinated, having tired of putting him up in his Baghdad apartment. It would also be news to those attending Saddam's exclusive terrorist training school at Salman Pak, in Baghdad's suburbs, or to the members of the Ansar al-Islam group, a terrorist group with links to al-Qaeda now plotting mass murder in the Kurdish north, or any of a dozen similar groups that have found shelter in Iraq.
But leave all that aside. Let's assume Mr. Gwyn is right in most respects. What would he counsel we should do when -- not if, but when -- Saddam does acquire these weapons? Suppose, for example, the Iraqi dictator, emboldened at having called the international community's bluff (for if we fail to act in the present case, that is what it would amount to), decides to renew his long-held ambitions of Middle East ascendancy, perhaps by invading another country, perhaps merely by sponsoring a new and more destructive round of terrorism. Confronted, he threatens to obliterate Jerusalem. What do we do then? Call his bluff, hoping he doesn't mean it? Would you make that kind of bet?
This is, quite frankly, not a position to be taken seriously. There are legitimate concerns about the risks associated with any attack on Iraq -- the risks to allied forces, the risks to the region. It is reasonable, likewise, to ask whether it would not be better for the United States to act in concert with other world powers, rather than alone -- though that is more a challenge to the world than the United States.
But as to the moral or strategic justification of a pre-emptive strike, of that there surely can no longer be any doubt.
Sen Fred Thompson confirms Iraq is threat to U.S.
Links to information on Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Systems and Design (VERY Scary!)
I agree. Simply ask this question. If you had one for sale, who would pay the most? Iraq of course. Now, if you assume there was only one sold or stolen in the last 10 years, Iraq would be the most likely recipient. Certainly not a question of money.
Thanks for the information, Brett66.
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.