|
Jewish World Review Dec. 5, 2001 / 20 Kislev 5762
Philip Terzian
As President Bush and other senior members of the administration keep
reminding us, the war against terrorism will be long and difficult, and in
some undefined way, unlike other wars we have fought. Well, either the White
House was preparing us for a more dangerous conflict than we have thus far
seen -- and have been pleasantly surprised by the comparative ease with
which the Taliban and al Qaeda have disintegrated -- or they plan to do more
than avenge the terrorist attacks on the United States. This has led an
influential claque in Washington to demand that the next phase include
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
It's a tempting proposition. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who is widely
reviled by his suffering people and fellow Arabs. He possesses an arsenal of
chemical and biological weapons, and has brushed aside inspectors on the
prowl for nuclear warheads. In the past two decades he has invaded Iran and
Kuwait, and makes no secret of his yearning to control the Saudi oil fields.
We're there, he's in Baghdad, why not finish the work begun in 1991?
As I say, it's a tempting proposition. But like most quick and easy
strategic solutions, the briar patch is thornier than it first appears.
To begin with, while there is no argument about the demerits of Saddam
Hussein, it is worth asking where the process stops. The Middle East harbors
more than a few (shall we say) nondemocratic regimes; are we prepared to
coerce universal reform? The neighboring continent of Africa boasts some of
the world's most relentlessly cruel, even genocidal and terrorist,
governments -- credited with more deaths than Saddam Hussein himself. Shall
we offer deliverance to the people of Sudan and Somalia, or punish the
Central and West African warlords who export conflict to neighboring states?
While we're on the subject of regional threats, we cannot expect to
leave the paranoid, delusional and bellicose North Korean regime intact. Our
Japanese friends are painfully cognizant of North Korea's growing nuclear
capacity. So, for that matter, do our democratic allies in Asia look
nervously at the People's Republic of China -- a government that has, in its
time, killed tens of millions of its subjects, practiced terror, and now
yearns to exercise great power status. It has been less than a year since
China held the crew of a crippled American reconnaissance plan hostage for
two weeks.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and in due
course, must be confronted. But now would be a singularly maladroit time to
do so. And despite the best persuasive efforts of armchair strategists such
as think-tanker Laurie Mylroie, columnist William Safire and Defense Review
Board chairman Richard Perle, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had
anything to do with the events of Sept. 11. There is no doubt that he has
had contact with elements of al Qaeda in the past, but so have innumerable
people, regimes and intelligence services who now stand with the United
States against transnational terror.
To invade Iraq as a postscript to our Afghan war would overnight
dissolve the consensus we have achieved. The Arab League would fall away
instantly, of course; but so would our European allies, including Great
Britain. India and Pakistan have united to argue strenuously against such
action, and we risk discarding the support of nearby states -- Turkey,
Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Oman, Tajikistan -- whose cooperation has made the
fight against Osama bin Laden possible. For that matter, we would risk a
wider, uncontrollable conflict. Saddam Hussein could be expected to launch a
few Scud missiles -- with chemical or biological weapons in the nose cones
-- toward Tel Aviv, and bomb the Saudi oil terminals, cutting off Western
supplies.
The only thing more certain than such a conflagration is the fact that
it could easily be averted by diplomacy.
During the Clinton administration, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
declared that the crippling economic sanctions against Iraq would never be
lifted so long as Saddam remained in power. Now would be a good time for
George W. Bush to switch tactics. The sanctions have not only failed to
affect Saddam Hussein, but as they enter their second decade, have succeeded
only in deepening the misery of Iraqis, and aggravating Arab resentment
against the United States. If President Bush were to trade lifting the
sanctions for the readmission of nuclear arms inspectors -- an exchange
Saddam Hussein seems prepared to make -- he would enjoy the best of both
worlds: Reliable intelligence about Iraqi arsenals, and the support of the
Arab world in exerting mounting pressure on a weakened Saddam
|