[Peace-discuss] Why Hasn't Saddam Killed Us All? by Doug Bandow

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

Why Hasn't Saddam Killed Us All?
by Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a syndicated 
columnist. 

We all should be dead. At least, we all should be dead if the administration 
is correct about Saddam Hussein. It believes there is nothing today that 
prevents a weak and isolated Iraq from striking the United States, the 
world's dominant power. 

Recently, before the U.N. Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell 
proved what we all already knew: Saddam Hussein has worked to develop weapons 
of mass destruction. But would Baghdad really use such weapons when doing so 
would risk its own survival? 

Powell suggested that the pragmatic secular dictator has made common cause 
with the suicidal religious fanatic. Alas, even the pro-war Economist 
magazine pronounced it "the weakest part of the case for war." 

The administration points to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom it links to al-Qaeda 
and who received medical treatment in Baghdad. The Ansar al-Islam group is 
said to include al-Qaeda soldiers and have established a poisons training 
camp. 

It's not clear how much credence to give to information gleaned from American 
captives, however. They could hope to win favor with their interrogators or 
provoke another conflict with America. 

Moreover, al-Zarqawi's ties to al-Qaeda are thin -- it is not a rigid 
organization with a well-defined membership. German intelligence says 
al-Zarqawi's al-Tawhid organization is more like an affiliate, and one 
focused on the Palestinians (and Jordan), not the United States. An American 
intelligence analyst argues that al-Zarqawi "is outside bin Laden's circle. 
He is not sworn al-Qaeda." 

The alleged link to Baghdad is especially threadbare: al-Zarqawi has worked 
more closely with Iran, also visited Lebanon and Syria, and been aided by a 
member of the royal family of Qatar. One German intelligence officer told The 
New York Times: "As of yet we have seen no indication of a direct link 
between (al) Zarqawi and Baghdad." 

Nor is there solid evidence that either Saddam or Osama bin Laden supports 
Ansar al-Islam. In fact, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that the 
group is tied to Iran. 

Ansar al-Islam asserts a desire to overthrow Saddam to impose an Islamic 
theocracy and is operating in territory no longer under Baghdad's control 
because of America's "no-fly zone" policy. As for the alleged poisons lab, 
even many Kurds say that they haven't heard of it. 

Although the allegations are dubious, the administration has brought enormous 
pressure to bear on intelligence agencies to prove them. Yet the CIA and FBI 
remain skeptical. 

Of Secretary Powell's claims, one intelligence official told The New York 
Times: "We just don't think it's there." 

The Blair government has done little better. A recent British intelligence 
report concludes that "any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust 
and incompatible ideology." 

Alleged connections between Baghdad and al-Qaeda must be viewed as inherently 
suspect. 

"They are natural enemies," observes Daniel Benjamin, a former National 
Security Council staff member. 

The biggest problem with the theory, however, is the fact that we are still 
alive. If there was a link, we all, or at least a lot of us, should be dead. 

Last October, the president declared that Iraq could attack America or its 
allies "on any given day" with chemical or biological weapons. But Saddam has 
not attacked. Or, explained President Bush: "Iraq could decide on any given 
day to provide a biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group." But 
Saddam has not done so. 

Apparently Saddam wants to stay alive. He understands that an attack, direct 
or indirect, would trigger overwhelming, annihilating retaliation. 

However much he hates America, he doesn't want to die. As CIA Director Tenet 
put it last October: Iraq "for now appears to be drawing a line short of 
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical or biological 
weapons." 

Alas, the administration is pursuing the one course that will eliminate this 
deterrence. Attack Iraq, and Saddam has no incentive not to strike and then 
hand off any remaining weapons to terrorists. 

Notes Tenet: Facing defeat, Saddam "probably would become much less 
constrained in adopting terrorist actions." Indeed, he might see helping 
Islamists use such weapons against the United States as "his last chance to 
exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." 

Saddam wouldn't even have to give an order. As Benjamin explains, "In the fog 
of war, much of this material would rapidly be 'privatized' -- liberated by 
colonels, security service operatives and soon-to-be unemployed scientists." 

The best evidence that Iraq can be deterred is that we are alive today. 
Unfortunately, seeking to oust Saddam removes any leverage to prevent him 
from conducting the sort of attack that the administration claims to most 
fear. Attacking Iraq will make more, and more dangerous, terrorist attacks 
more likely. 

This article was published in the Bangkok Post, Feb. 12, 2003.

 

 Send this page to a friend 

 Printer Friendly Version


1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Phone (202) 842-0200 Fax (202) 842-3490
All Rights Reserved © 2003 Cato Institute