Two weeks ago I started writing a piece recommending Kenneth M. Pollack’s
book, The Threatening Storm, and by the time I got back to it, the
war was over.
Nonetheless, this is the most important book to read for an explanation
of why it was important for the U.S. to invade Iraq rather than try to
depend on inspections, why it needed to be sooner rather than later, and why
we should stay and rebuild Iraq rather than leave the Iraqis to sort it out.
Pollack has spent most of the past fifteen years studying Iraq, as an
analyst for the CIA, as a member of the National Security Council, and in
private think tanks. His book consists of three parts. Part I reviews
Iraq’s history, Saddam’s history, and the past 12 years of our "containment"
policy. Part II examines the current state of Iraq (as of last year –
the book was released in September). Part III steps through each of our
policy options.
As I noted in this article, Saddam is a bad
man who, given an opportunity, does bad things. He wants to be the leader of
the entire Arab world and has invaded Iran and Kuwait to try to achieve
that. The development of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are steps
toward achieving this ambition. The Coalition halted his invasion of Kuwait
and installed a containment regime based on inspections and strict sanctions
on the kinds of goods that Iraq could import. This containment regime has
eroded over the past several years due to illegal smuggling, cat-and-mouse
games played with the inspectors, and the effective bribing of France,
Russia, and China via the oil-for-food program instituted by the U.N. to
help avoid a humanitarian disaster.
In a key section, Pollack describes the problems with relying on
continued inspections. The first inspection organization (UNSCOM) was much
stronger than the organization (UNMOVIC) in operation last fall, and yet it
failed to discover WMD programs that were later exposed by Iraqi defectors.
France, Russia, and China have actively worked to reduce the effectiveness
of inspections, because of their economic contracts with Saddam. Those
countries might be willing to strengthen the inspections if the alternative
was a U.S.-led invasion, but we cannot afford to pay for an invasion force
to sit poised for a sufficient amount of time to disarm Saddam. In addition,
our allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc.) would not be willing to
host our armies for as long as it would take.
Since containment is failing without hope of recovery, the alternatives
are stepping back to a posture of deterrence–hoping that the threat of our
invasion will deter a nuclear-armed Saddam of the future–or attempting to
remove Saddam from power. Pollack works through three routes to regime
change: covert action (a coup attempt by the CIA), war by proxy (the Afghan
Approach), or a full invasion. I won’t give all the details here; it’s worth
your while to read the book yourself. Suffice it to say that the only option
Pollack thinks has much chance of success is the full invasion.
Pollack also addresses the aftermath of invasion. How shall Iraq be
reconstructed? We can cobble together some sort of power-sharing arrangement
between the various interests in Iraq, and then leave as soon as possible.
Or we can stay for the long term (five to ten years) helping the Iraqis
establish "a government that could represent the will of the Iraqi people."
Whether or not you support the war, each of us has a responsibility to
find out what we can about the issues of the day. This is especially
true for those of us who take a stance on the issues. This book is required
reading for those who are concerned about American policy toward Iraq.
NOTE: With this article, I am inaugurating an occasional series of
book recommendations. (I just signed up to be an Associate for Amazon.)
You can
buy this book at Amazon.com.
I’ve been trying for a month, off and on, to write a piece on the reasons
why we are going to war with Iraq. Now, of course, as I sit in front of the
television watching first day coverage, events seem to be overtaking my
writing. But I wanted to put down my explanations to people I know on
why we are invading.
Saddam Hussein’s Failure to Obey U.N. Resolutions
Before the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had signed several international
treaties declaring that they would not develop or use chemical, biological,
or nuclear weapons. After the U.S.-led coalition had defeated Iraq’s forces
in 1991, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution requiring Iraq, as
part of the terms of a cease-fire, to destroy all existing stocks of
chemical and biological weapons and all facilities for their manufacture, to
cease any attempts to develop nuclear weapons, and to allow inspectors to
verify that these things were done.
The Security Council’s Resolution 1441, passed last fall, declared that
Iraq was "in material breach" of these cease-fire conditions.
Unfortunately, the resolution did not set a deadline for compliance or
indicate what consequences Iraq would face for failing to comply.
(I believe this is the reason that the Bush Administration contends that
a "second resolution" is not necessary: Resolution 660 demanded Iraqi forces
leave Kuwait. Resolution 678 demanded Iraq comply with Resolution 660 and
authorized member nations to use "all necessary means" to enforce 660 "and
all subsequent relevant resolutions." Resolution 686 laid out the terms of
the cease-fire. Resolution 1441 declared Iraq to have violated those terms.
The Administration, I believe, considers it a reasonable interpretation of
this series of events that since Iraq has violated the those terms, member
nations continue to be authorized to use all necessary means to enforce
those cease-fire terms.)
Even without access to the intelligence available to the President, one
could reasonably conclude that the Iraq’s efforts to evade inspection is an
indicator that they have either not destroyed their stocks of proscribed
weapons, or that they have continued to produce (or attempt to produce)
these weapons.
Saddam Hussein’s History of Invading His Neighbors
Since Mr. Hussein became president of Iraq in 1979, he has spent his time
either invading his neighbors or preparing to do so. In 1980, he invaded
Iran, starting a war that lasted until 1988. After a brief respite, he
invaded Kuwait in 1990, annexing that country as "Iraq’s 19th province." The
only reason that he has not launched any other invasions since then is that
the coalition has kept a tight lid on his activities and the U.N. has kept
up an embargo that has limited his ability to re-arm.
Statements by Mr. Hussein and his government indicate that he believes he
has been divinely selected to unite the Arab world. He claims that he is
descended from the prophet Mohammed. (See
this article
from the May 2002 issue of The Atlantic for a glimpse of what Mr. Hussein is
like.) In this sense, I finally understand what former President Bush was
saying in 1991 about Mr. Hussein’s similarity to Adolf Hitler. Hitler,
too, believed he was destined to be the savior of his (Germanic) race.
Given that Iraq probably possesses these weapons of mass destruction and
that Mr. Hussein has a history of attacking his neighbors, he poses enough
of a threat to security in a strategically important region to justify an
invasion.
Saddam Hussein’s History of Oppression Toward the Iraqi People
(Much of the information below comes from
this
dossier on Saddam Hussein compiled by the British government.
Non-governmental organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International were key sources for the information in the dossier.)
The government of Iraq is tightly controlled by Saddam Hussein; it can be
fairly said that very little governmental action in Iraq occurs without Mr.
Hussein’s knowledge and approval. Since he took power, the government has
launched chemical weapon attacks on the Kurdish population of the north
(both in the period between the Iran-Iraq War and the Persian Gulf War, and
in the period after the Persian Gulf War) and on the Shiite majority in the
south.
Dissidents in Iraq are, at best, thrown into prison for the rest of their
lives, and at worst are cruelly tortured and executed. The conditions
in the political prisons are beyond inhumane. Prisoners are often kept in
cells too small for them to stand upright or lie flat on the floor. Many die
of starvation. In some prisons, the inmates are beaten twice daily and
female inmates are raped regularly.
People are routinely tortured in Iraq. Methods of torture include eye
gouging, suspension from the ceiling by the wrists, drilling through the
hands, rape, being lowered into acid baths, and many others. Women are raped
and both men and women executed as punishments without judicial proceedings.
This evidence and much more are used as justification for an invasion to
liberate Iraq from a cruel and repressive regime.
