Posted on 1-8-2002
Iraq
Splitting US Down Middle
By JOSEPH R. BIDEN Jr. and RICHARD G. LUGAR, in NY Times 31
July 2002
WASHINGTON — Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned
a great deal
this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent months,
President Bush has made clear his determination to remove Iraqi
dictator
Saddam Hussein from power — a goal many of us in Congress share.
But to
date we've seen only leaked reports of competing military plans.
These have
reflected deep divisions within the administration about whether
and how to
proceed. The time has come for a serious discussion of American
policy
toward Iraq.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings
today.
While the White House supports the hearings — which have been
coordinated
closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee — administration
officials will not participate at this time lest the president
be put in
the position of having to make critical decisions prematurely.
Without
prejudging any particular course of action — including the possibility
of
staying with nonmilitary options — we hope to start a national
discussion
of some critical questions.
First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate
is the
danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam
Hussein's
relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true
that other
regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have, or
seek to
acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What makes
Mr. Hussein
unique is that he has actually used them — against his own people
and
against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four years, Iraq
has blocked
the return of United Nations weapons inspectors. We need to
explore Mr.
Hussein's track record in acquiring, making and using weapons
of mass
destruction and the likelihood he would share them with terrorists.
We also
need a clear assessment of his current capabilities, including
conventional
forces and weapons.
Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat?
The
containment strategy pursued by the United States since the
end of the
Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the
containment
strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program, is
one option.
But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play cat-and-mouse
with
inspectors while building more weapons and selling them to those
who would
use them against us. If we wait for the danger to become clear
and present,
it may be too late. That is why some believe removing Mr. Hussein
from
power is the better course.
A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by
attacking Mr.
Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to
prevent: his
use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern he
might try to
spark a regional war. We must determine whether resources can
be shifted to
a major military undertaking in Iraq without compromising the
war on terror
elsewhere. We have to ask how much military intervention would
cost and
consider its likely impact on our economy. And we need to determine
what
level of support we are likely to get from allies in the Middle
East and
Europe.
Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our responsibilities?
This question has not been explored but may prove to be the
most critical.
In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted successfully, but many
of us believe
our commitment to security and reconstruction there has fallen
short. Given
Iraq's strategic location, its large oil reserves and the suffering
of the
Iraqi people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.
We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically
and
politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate
to the Iraqi
people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors
would
breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through
in detail.
The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in
harm's way,
need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we need
to know
everything possible about the risks of action and of inaction.
Ignoring
these factors could lead us into something for which the American
public is
wholly unprepared.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting
ranking
minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
|