[Peace-discuss] Is war necessary?

[patton paul]

Opinion
Is war necessary?
By GEOFFREY O'GARA and DAN WHIPPLE
Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune
Jan 23, 2003, 00:00

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

When you see the nation about to make a big mistake, it seems incumbent
upon patriots to at least point it out.

The impending war against Iraq is such a mistake. No matter the outcome,
it will make the U.S. less secure, increase the likelihood that Saddam
Hussein will use his dreaded weapons, reduce Middle Eastern stability,
turn many of our allies against us, and increase the likelihood of
terrorism within the U.S.

The New York Times reported this weekend that the administration is so
bent on war that it no longer even cares whether Iraq is guilty of
anything. No "smoking gun" is required, Times writer Steven Weisman
reports. He quotes an administration official saying, "At some point, we
have to be honest with ourselves and ask whether Iraq is cooperating."

This whole affair began in the shadow of the terrorist actions against the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The administration has conflated this
with Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction." But to arrive at some
meaningful action that will protect America's borders and Americans, we
need to decide what the threat from terrorists is, and what the threat
from Iraq is. They are not the same.

Let's start with Iraq.

Iraq may or may not have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The U.N.
weapons inspectors have so far been unable to find any. But rather than
debate the point, let's simply concede the administration's position:
Saddam Hussein is Satan himself, and has these weapons. Does that mean
that attacking him is the best way to neutralize this threat? Well, no.
Saddam has never used or threatened to use these weapons against us. None
of the terrorists we claim to be worried about are sponsored by him. We
don't like him, but it doesn't constitute a threat to the U.S. However, if
we threaten Saddam's very existence, he is very likely to loose these
weapons on us.

You don't have to take our word for this. Congress asked the
administration's security agencies to prepare a joint confidential report
on the threat from Iraq. When portions of the report were released to the
public, the administration's own agencies concluded that Saddam was
unlikely to use WMD unless the existence of his regime is threatened.

Further, there is a policy in place that has worked for fifty years to
curb the use of weapons of mass destruction by enemy states. It is called
deterrence. We've never been very comfortable with this policy, but we
have to concede that it has worked. Saddam may be Satan, but even the
administration doesn't argue that he's a madman. As a rational national
leader, Saddam is less likely to use his weapons than say, Josef Stalin,
who really was a madman.

This is not to say that there is zero risk in relying on policies other
than war to contain Saddam. The world is full of risks. A risk from Iraq
would remain. It's just that the risk of a U.S. war of aggression
triggering the very thing we are trying to prevent is much greater than
choosing a course of containment and deterrence.

The next issue, which seems to be almost lost in the administration's war
frenzy, is terrorist attacks on U.S. citizens. In the last ten years or
so, there have been four terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. There was a
foiled attempt to bomb the World Trade Center by Muslim militants. Then
there was the successful Sept. 11 attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.
There was the Oklahoma City truck bomb. And there was the anthrax letters.

There have also been several attacks on American military installations
and embassies around the world.

Only two of the four domestic attacks were carried out by foreigners.

The perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is unknown, but investigators
believe it was an American.

All of the attacks, domestic and foreign, perpetrated by foreigners have
used conventional weapons - or by things that aren't even usually called
weapons, like airliners. When you look at the facts, rather than the
fanciful scenarios offered by the administration, the threats come from
people with access to weapons you can buy in a hardware store, like
Timothy McVeigh did.

Bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age will do nothing to prevent this kind of
attack. In fact, it will inflame the very people who pose the greatest
threat. Again, the risk from the administration's policy is greater than
the risk from alternatives.

Furthermore, Bush seems to have placed the "war on terrorism" on the back
burner in favor of its war on Iraq. Bush's own security agencies have
warned that an Iraq War will increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack
on the U.S. mainland. Has any government agency so much as sent you a
pamphlet about how to deal with a bioweapons assault? Where would you go
to get your smallpox shot? What's the best defense against a chemical
weapons attack? Don't look at us. We don't know either. But doesn't that
information strike you as a pretty basic defense for the kind of war the
administration plans to fight? The administration insists that Iraq poses
a risk to peace. And we agree, they certainly. It's just that the risk
posed by the Bush administration is even greater.

 Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue

Top of Page


__________________________________________________________________
Dr. Paul Patton
Research Scientist
Beckman Institute  Rm 3027  405 N. Mathews St.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Urbana, Illinois 61801
work phone: (217)-265-0795   fax: (217)-244-5180
home phone: (217)-328-4064
homepage: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ppatton/index.html

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious.  It is the
source of all true art and science."
-Albert Einstein
__________________________________________________________________