Weighing the case against Iraq.

AuthorVilbig, Peter
PositionNational

The attack may come with lightning speed, using ground-hugging jets and helicopters to strike directly at Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, in his Baghdad headquarters. Or perhaps the blow will come more slowly, after a lengthy buildup of troops on a neighboring border, in a meticulously planned assault across miles of desert.

Saddam is widely believed to have stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons capable of inflicting massive civilian casualties. President George W. Bush has made it clear that he considers Saddam a direct threat to the U.S. and the world.

The President issued an ultimatum last month to the United Nations: Take action against Iraq; if not, the U.S. will act alone to remove Saddam from power. "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger," he told the UN.

Preparations for war with Iraq, which would likely be the biggest U.S. military operation in years, are under way. More than 20,000 American military personnel are in the Persian Gulf region now, within close striking distance of Iraq. (By contrast, the war in Afghanistan currently involves about 9,000 troops.) Also in position are hundreds of tanks and fighter-bombers, and the antimissile batteries to protect U.S. forces. Much more is planned.

With thousands of lives at stake, any U.S. decision to attack will depend on the outcome of a high-stakes international diplomatic and political chess game. Here are some of the arguments and factors that will play a role.

GULF WAR, PART 2

Iraq has been at war almost constantly since Saddam rose to power. In 1980, it launched a border war with Iran that lasted nearly eight years. In 1990, Iraq invaded oil-rich Kuwait, only to be driven back the following year by a U.S.-led international coalition in the Persian Gulf war.

Saddam employed chemical weapons against Iran, and against his own civilian people. A poison gas attack in 1988 killed 5,000 Kurds, an ethnic group in the north of Iraq that had sided with Iran.

Following the Gulf War, a defeated Saddam agreed to stop trying to produce or acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. But UN weapons inspectors found and destroyed many existing weapons and production plants until Saddam refused to permit further inspections in 1998.

U.S. officials argue that the Iraqi dictator continues to develop weapons of mass destruction and could turn them over to terrorists bent on striking the U.S., leading to casualties and devastation that would dwarf the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But some members of Congress with access to intelligence information say the administration is exaggerating the Iraqi threat. Opponents of military action say they doubt Saddam would risk his own annihilation by using his deadly arsenal--indeed, fear of U.S. retaliation may be the reason he did not deploy chemical and biological weapons in the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that Saddam still needs several years to produce enough uranium for a bomb, though he might acquire what he needs more quickly through theft or on the black market. Opponents also say an Iraq attack would take attention away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, which launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

THE MILITARY STAKES

Could the U.S. win a war against Iraq? Most military analysts say yes. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT