DEPOSING SADDAM

By Mike Hudack

The Bush Administration seems to be entirely obsessed with ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, whether such an action is in the best interests of the United States of America or not. President Bush and his advisors have repeatedly, publicly, called for "regime change" in Baghdad -- and Condi Rice and Dick Cheney have been hitting the talk show circuit to drum up support for what I call "Gulf War Redux". The fact is, however, that Gulf War Redux is not in the best interests of the United States.

The argument that Cheney and Rice use to support war in Iraq is, on it's face, a logical one. Saddam Hussein is an evil man and is seeking possession of extremely dangerous weapons with which he could kill thousands or even millions of people. The United States cannot allow him to obtain these weapons, and must oust him before he does. If he does obtain those weapons, our goose is cooked.

People inevitably ask why the Bush Administration is "suddenly" interested in getting rid of Saddam after September 11. The reasoning is that we allowed al-Qaeda to be a "potential threat" to the United States for years -- and then September 11 rolled around. If we allow Saddam to sit around for years... what could happen?

If international relations were as simple as that, regime change in Iraq would be a good idea -- and Condi Rice would be out of several jobs. She would no longer be orchestrating foreign policy, and she'd no longer be teaching it. The fact is that there are numerous good reasons not to attack Iraq, and only one of them has to do with the suffering Iraqi people. None of them, unfortunately, are quite as simple as the argument for Gulf War Redux.

Consider it an application of the old adage "the best defense is a good offense".

The primary reason for not attacking Iraq is that doing so would be illegal without the consent of the United Nations Security Council -- consent the United States is extraodinarily unlikely to attain. The United Nations Charter, which the United States has not only signed but largely wrote, reserves the right of sovereign nations "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence". This right, however, may only be invoked if a sovereign nation is the victim of an armed attack. This right may not be invoked because of a potential threat.

Consider India and Pakistan. Do we really want to give precedent supporting a nuclear first-strike against it's nuclear neighbor? It would, after all, fall under our new definition of "pre-emptive self-defense". Such a doctrine would even have allowed a Soviet nuclear first-strike on the United States.

There is only one circumstance under which a pre-emptive self-defense is morally and legally permissible -- in the case of imminent attack. Consider it an application of the old adage "the best defense is a good offense". Israel's action at the beginning of the Six Day War is an example of such an attack.

The fact is, however, that Iraq poses no direct threat to the United States. It has chemical and biological weapons but doesn't possess the means to deliver them against the United States or US assets overseas. It doesn't possess nuclear weapons and there is no intelligence that they will possess nuclear weapons soon. And, even if they did possess nuclear weapons, they still wouldn't have the means to deliver them to the United States.

There are no allies in the region overtly willing to aid Gulf War Redux and the cost of such an operation if there were would probably be in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

An attack on Iraq could, potentially, be permissable if it could be shown that they violated the 1991 cease fire that ended the Persian Gulf War. That cease fire required the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction development program to end and ordered the implementation of an inspection regime to verify compliance. The case could be made that Iraq has failed to comply with this inspection regime, but that case would have to be confirmed by the UN Security Council -- and they would have to authorize military action.

Beyond the issues of morality and legality there are more practical considerations.

A US invasion of Iraq resulting in regime change would require between 150,000 and 250,000 US troops and allies in the region willing to aid the war effort. Regime change would require a years-long occupation during which we rebuilt the Iraqi government. There are no allies in the region overtly willing to aid Gulf War Redux and the cost of such an operation if there were would probably be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. The Persian Gulf War, in 1991, cost about $71 billion. Of that, $54 billion was paid for by allies. We'd have to bear the costs alone for Gulf War Redux -- which would be much higher because of the much larger scope of the second war.

There's more to the cost of such an operation than dollar amounts. An invasion of Iraq would most likely result in heavy street fighting with Republican Guard troops in Baghdad. In the first Gulf War the Iraqi Army was easily defeated because Saddam chose to fight a desert tank war in the style of Rommel. The United States had been preparing to fight such a war since World War II. The confrontation between Soviet and American tanks on the fields of Europe had been the focus of US military doctrine and technological development -- it was the very type of war we could be assured of winning. Saddam won't make the same mistake again -- he will instead position his forces in cities. Saddam would make every effort to engage the United States in Mogadishu-style urban combat -- the type of combat that led to the movie Black Hawk Down. Urban combat exercises conducted by the US Marine Corps show casualty rates of more than ten percent.

The costs to the United States don't even end with money or casualties. The entire War on Terror could suffer as well. Even President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt -- a staunch US ally receiving many millions of dollars of US aid -- has expressed strong opposition to Gulf War Redux, suggesting that there would be widespread unrest and demonstrations throughout the Arab world. Kuwait, the very country invaded by Iraq ten years previous, doesn't support a repeat of the Persian Gulf War. And Turkey -- a key American ally and NATO member -- is strongly opposed to Gulf War Redux.

If America attacks Iraq we run the risk of losing what very little goodwill is left for us on the "Arab Street". Even as we need more help in rounding up terrorists the world over, we'll lose credibility and bargaining power.

Attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam simply isn't worth it. Saddam, while a thorn in our side, poses no great risk to the United States. His weapons of mass destruction -- while dangerous to his neighbors -- don't pose a risk to the United States of America. Deposing him will be not be an easy task, and it'll be a task with little reward.