EDITORIAL
Resolution misfits the times
It was an extraordinary moment Oct. 2 at the House
International Relations Committee. Iowa Republican Jim Leach -- a one-time aide
to then-Congressman Donald Rumsfeld, Foreign Service officer, and a 13- term
member of Congress -- spelled out in bone-chilling detail the likely result of
a U.S.-led invasion. It’s worth noting, as we present his comments on the
Iraqi War Resolution, that Leach strongly supported the 1991 Gulf War
Resolution. Leach’s statement:
This resolution involves a difficult
set of decisions that neither the Congress nor the Executive can duck. Anyone
who is not conflicted in their judgments is not thinking seriously.
For myself, I have enormous regard for our president and great
respect for his foreign policy advisers, but I have come to the conclusion that
this resolution misfits the times and the circumstances.
There may be a case for regime change, but not for war against
Iraq and its people.
As powerful a case for concern as the preparatory clauses of this
resolution outline, they do not justify authorization for war, particularly
absent further Security Council and multinational support.
Because time is brief I would like to emphasize three points:
- Given the events of 9/11, a doctrine of preemption has a
modicum of legitimacy. But the greater our power, the more important it is to
use it with restraint. Otherwise it will be seen as hubristic with a strong
prospect of counterproductive ramifications. Engaging in war the wrong way can
too easily jeopardize the underlying conflict against terrorism and undercut
core American values and leadership around the world.
- There are many so-called “end game” elements that
have not been adequately addressed. They range from the dilemma of street
combat to problems of post-war governance to worldwide Muslim reaction.
- And most profoundly, this resolution is based on a
misunderstanding of modern science as it applies to weapons of war. The
assumption is that there is a compelling case to preempt a nuclear weapons
program. But what is underestimated is the volume and the danger of the
biological agents Saddam possesses and the nature of his likely response to
outside intervention.
The tactical assumption is that Saddam will be on the defensive
with an American and British attack. But the likelihood is that as troubling as
“end game” problems are, the “beginning conflict” issues
may be the most difficult ever confronted in the region and possibly in all of
modern warfare. When a cornered tyrant is confronted with a “use or
lose” option with weapons of mass destruction, and is isolated in the Arab
world unless he launches a “jihad” against Israel, it is not hard to
imagine what he will choose.
Israel has never faced a graver challenge to its survival. The
likelihood is that weapons of mass destruction, including biological agents,
will be immediately unleashed in the event of Western intervention in Iraq. In
the Gulf War, Saddam launched some 40 Scud missiles against Israel -- none with
biological agents. Today he has mobile labs, tons of such agents, and an
assortment of means to deliver them. It is true that his stockpiles could be
larger in years to come, but [House] members must understand that the
difference between a few and a few hundred tons of anthrax or plague may not be
quantum. These are living organisms that can multiply. They endanger the region
and potentially the planet.
We used to have a doctrine of M.A.D. -- Mutually Assured
Destruction -- between the United States and the U.S.S.R. No one seriously
contemplated aggression because of the consequences.
Today for the first time in human history we have a doctrine of
mutually assured destruction between two smaller countries -- Iraq and Israel
-- one with biological weapons, the other nuclear. The problem is that British
and American intervention could easily trigger an Iraqi biological attack on
Israel, which could be met by a nuclear response. Not only would we be the
potential precipitating actor, but our troops could be caught in crosswinds and
crossfire.
This is a circumstance we should step back from.
National Catholic Reporter, October 11,
2002
|
