10 reasons not to attack Iraq

Is the United States justified in going to war against Iraq?

The Bush administration says it is. It argues:

1) Iraq posses nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threaten the security of the United States.

2) Saddam Hussein is a past and future ally of terrorists who threaten the United States.


The Bush administration has offered other rationales for war: Saddam is a thug who oppresses his own people and threatens his neighbors. He has violated U.N. and international agreements. And he has hindered U.N. weapons inspections.

Those accusations all seem to be true. But they are not valid reasons to go to war, since they go far beyond any proper defensive role for the U.S. military. It is not the job of the United States to liberate the oppressed people of the world, nor to defend Arab nations against aggression, nor to enforce international treaties, nor to compel Hussein to open his borders to U.N. weapons inspectors.

What about the U.N. report that says Iraq did not prove conclusively that it dismantled its weapons of mass destruction? The mere possession of weapons is not a valid reason for the U.S. to invade a sovereign nation. After all, Iraq is not the only nation with such armaments. According to the Pentagon, 12 nations have nuclear weapons programs, 13 nations possess biological weapons, 16 nations have chemical weapons, and 28 nations are armed with ballistic missiles.

In a similar vein, most of the more colorful anti-war allegations from the Left are also irrelevant: That a war is a ploy to capture Iraq's oil fields for Bush's oil-tycoon friends, or to distract attention from a frail economy, or a son's effort to finish what Bush Senior started. Those allegations merely distract from the central question: Is a war with Iraq necessary for the security of the United States?

The unambiguous answer is No.

The evidence makes it clear that Iraq does not pose an immediate, grave, and unequivocal threat to the security of the U.S.

Hussein's threat to the United States has been overstated Neither does evidence exist that having Hussein in power is any more threatening than the rule of other despotic tyrants around the world.

Here are 10 reasons why the U.S. should not go to war with Iraq:



While there is clear evidence that Iraq possesses a variety of chemical and biological weapons (including mustard gas, nerve gas, and anthrax) - and while he may be working to build nuclear weapons -- there is almost no chance that Hussein would use them to attack the United States.

Why? Because Hussein has no wish to die. The Iraqi dictator understands that if he attacks the United States, he faces massive, devastating retaliation.

Hussein had an opportunity to use chemical weapons against U.S. troops during the Persian Gulf War, and he did not. The lesson to be drawn from this is that Hussein was deterred from using chemical weapons against an adversary capable of massive retaliation.

Even CIA director George Tenet in a letter to Congress, admitted that Iraq would not risk an attack on the world's only superpower. He wrote: "[Iraq] for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting ... attacks with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States."

But might Hussein use WMD against the U.S. because he is insane, irrational, or reckless? No. Contrary to Bush Administration allegations, Hussein is neither a madman, nor irrational.




Is Hussein an ally of al Qaeda? No!

There is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Hawks inside and outside the Bush administration have gone to extraordinary lengths over the past months to find a link, but they have come up empty-handed.

This isn't surprising, relations between Saddam and al Qaeda have always been quite poor. Osama bin Laden is a radical fundamentalist, and he detests secular leaders like Saddam. Similarly, Saddam has consistently repressed fundamentalist movements within Iraq.

Given the non-alliance between Hussein and al Qaeda, an invasion of Iraq would represent a setback in the U.S.'s efforts to seek justice for the September 11 attacks.

Instead of being part of the war on the terrorist network that remains viable and is still attacking the United States, an unprovoked invasion of Iraq would detract from it

Hussein has given aid to Islamic terrorists -- most recently, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers -- but the terrorist groups that Iraq supports do not focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.



Hussein would not give al Qaeda nuclear or chemical weapons because doing so would pose a danger to the Iraqi dictator's favorite cause: The longevity of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam could never be sure the United States would not incinerate him if it merely suspected he had made it possible for anyone to strike the United States with nuclear weapons The U.S. government already deeply suspicious of Iraq, and a nuclear attack against the United States or its allies would raise that hostility to fever pitch.

There's another reason Al-Qaeda is so "ideologically incompatible" with Hussein that the dictator fears the terrorist group "could ultimately turn on him and use WMD weapons against him."



Given that he faces certain annihilation if he uses nuclear, chemical, or biological devices against the United States, what might convince Hussein to employ such weapons?

Only the belief that he has nothing left to lose. In other words, an invasion by the U.S. that Hussein knows will topple and kill him.

"In the face of a threat to his own survival, Hussein will have little incentive to do anything but lash out. Under those circumstances, Hussein is very dangerous. Now the message to Hussein is, no matter what you do, the U.S. government is coming to eliminate you. That only gives Hussein more incentive to plan a counterattack -- in the event of a U.S. invasion -- using WMD against U.S. forces, Israel, or Saudi oil fields.




President Bush has made the case that toppling Saddam Hussein is part of a far-reaching War on Terrorism. However, a war with Iraq is likely to increase the threat of terrorism, not decrease it. An invasion of Iraq plays right into al Qaeda's hands Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq could destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely aligned with the United States.



In the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was able to field only a "Third World military" that quickly crumbled before the U.S.'s technology and power

Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors (who oppose a U.S. invasion)



The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) is clear: "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war."

Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.

On October 11, President Bush did receive Congressional "authorization" for military action against Iraq, but not the declaration of war the Constitution requires.

The Bush administration has tried to sidestep this formality, invoking what Vice President Dick Cheney calls the "inherent presidential power" to defend "vital national interests."

"Bush's lawyers have assured him he may start dropping bombs on Baghdad anytime the urge strikes, without the bother of getting approval from ... If the founding fathers were to hear all this, they would wonder how their cherished republic fell back under the rule of the King of England. They took care not to give the executive a free hand to initiate armed hostilities. An unprovoked attack on another sovereign state ... undermines the principles of a constitutional republic.



How much will a war with Iraq cost?

Although it is difficult to predict how much Americans would pay for a new war with Iraq, one fact seems indisputable: It will be many times more than the cost of the last [Persian Gulf] war. Given all the variables, even federal bureaucrats don't know how much Gulf War II could cost. However, according to "best-guess" estimates by Congressional staff and Washington, DC think tanks, it could cost as much as $100 billion to $200 billion to invade and occupy Iraq. An invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could ... bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin.



In September 2002, the Bush Administration released a document entitled "The National Military Strategy for the United States of America" which outlined a new "first-strike" policy for the United States.

Under this policy -- which represented a sharp break from the past and serves as the strategic underpinning for the war with Iraq -- the U.S. can attack another nation if there is evidence that it is building or trying to obtain WMD.

The policy does not require those "enemy" nations to possess working weapons, or to even explicitly threaten the U.S.'s security.

Indeed, the U.S. military is now authorized to "act against ... emerging threats before they are fully formed," writes President Bush.

The problem with such a shoot-first doctrine -- besides the almost unlimited power it gives the U.S. government to wage war around the globe -- is that it stands in stark contrast to American tradition.

While the US has never fully lived up to its don't-strike-first ideal (the U.S. attacked first or fabricated a pretext for the Mexican War in 1846-47, the War of 1812, and the Vietnam War), the U.S. has never seen itself as an aggressor in war.

For example, the Declaration of Independence lists 27 accusations against King George III "in an effort to prove that Americans weren't the ones who started the American Revolution,

two centuries later, John F. Kennedy said in a speech: "Our arms will never be used to strike the first blow in any attack. It is our national tradition."



Iraq isn't the only nation with a nuclear weapons program, a bellicose foreign policy, and the potential to give WMD to terrorists: North Korea and Pakistan also fit those criteria.

Take North Korea. The reclusive communist nation has been covertly obtaining tools to produce weapons-grade uranium, according to the CIA. North Korea has been buying high-speed centrifuge machines, with which the communists can produce weapons-grade fissionable material from natural uranium -- enough to manufacture two or three nuclear warheads a year.

While the CIA is unsure whether North Korea has actually built nuclear devices, its weapons program violates international law and agreements with the U.S.

Given the United States' doctrine of pre-emptive strike against nations with WMD assets. Logically, the new strategy should have applied first to North Korea, whose nuclear-weapons program remains far more advanced than Iraq's."

Where is North Korea getting its nuclear technology? From Pakistan. Pakistan has been sharing sophisticated technology, warhead design information, and weapons-testing data with the Pyongyang regime.

In exchange, Pakistan has purchased long-range missiles from North Korea, with which it could launch nuclear weapons at its rival, India.

Pakistan's threats don't stop there. There are close ties between some scientists working for the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and radical Islamic groups.

Given their similarities to Iraq, is the U.S. planning to invade North Korea and Pakistan? No.

President Bush is reportedly considering renewed aid to North Korea in exchange for a promise to end its nuclear program.

And Pakistan is our ally in the "War on Terrorism."

Conclusion

Reviewing the evidence, the assumptions that underlie the administration's invasion of Iraq range from cautiously pessimistic to outright fallacious. His aggressive nature may be cause for concern, but it is not a threat to the United States a half a world away. Iraq's pursuit of NBC nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons may be a cause for concern, but it is not a sufficient reason for going to war."