« Options | Main | Why I Love Baseball »

September 20, 2002

Options, Part II

As the President has now asked Congress for authorization to launch an American attack against Iraq, it seems obvious we will soon see American forces attempting to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Even at this late date, however, it's difficult for me to state unequivocally that such an attack is the best available option for us. While I don't object to fighting wars when they are necessary, endorsing one isn't easy under any circumstances. (I suspect that is true of most people, including most of those who are currently calling for war on Iraq.) I wonder, what are our options in dealing with Iraq?

Just as with the war on terror, we could do nothing about Iraq. We could pursue a live and let live policy that effectively lets Hussein off the hook for his past attacks, both against his neighbors and against the United States, in the hopes that he would then either no longer be aggressive, or at least contain his aggression to his neighbors. It's certainly theoretically possible that Hussein would not maintain his aggressive ways by attempting to strike at U.S. interests, or even that he wouldn't start his third war with one of his neighbors. Given that we already know he has chemical weapons, however, and that he is close to or may have already developed biological and atomic weapons, choosing to do nothing means that, if we're wrong and Hussein does lash out against us or his neighbors again, he will have weapons theoretically capable of deterring any actions against him. Removing Hussein from power now will be expensive, both in money and in blood. Removing Hussein from power if he had nuclear weapons would exact a vastly greater cost. Because the consequences of being wrong are that great, doing nothing is not a viable solution.

We could keep doing what we're doing now. The combination of sanctions and low-level war may be sufficient to keep Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. This approach could be seen as similar to the American approach to Fidel Castro, cutting him off from the world as best we can until he dies and hope his successor is someone we can (or will) deal with. The problem with this approach is that it allows Hussein to continue to sway world opinion in his favor by starving Iraqi children and blaming those deaths on American sanctions. This gradual shift in public opinion would, in time, probably be sufficient to allow Hussein to smuggle the last pieces he needs for nuclear weapons into Iraq, once again granting him a powerful deterrent against the United States. Nonetheless, were the United States to stick to its guns, we might be able to keep Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. This option isn't a great one, but it's not wholly unviable.

We could attempt to reintroduce inspectors to Iraq, to seek out and eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and eliminating his ability to construct new ones. Brink Lindsey has already demonstrated why this approach will not work.

Or we can invade. Invading will certainly result in thousands of Iraqi deaths, and anywhere from a hundred to several thousand Allied deaths. It is virtually certain, however, that a dedicated invasion would succeed in removing Hussein from power. With Iraq wholly under the control of U.S.-allied forces, locating and destroying WMD sites would be far more feasible, and the new Iraqi government would be far less interested in maintaining them in any case. This option carries with it the greatest chance of success in removing a major source of WMDs from the world stage, but it also the option with the highest risk of disaster if things go wrong.

So which is better: continuing the status quo and hoping it will be sufficient to keep nuclear weapons out of Saddam Hussein's hands? Or invading, and accepting the costs in blood and treasure to ensure beyond any doubt Hussein will never possess nuclear weapons? The answer, I think, comes down to how we view Hussein. If Hussein is rational by our definition of the term, the first option is the wiser course, as even if Hussein does get nuclear weapons, he's smart enough not to use them. Assuming that Hussein would not use nuclear weapons if he possessed them is a conclusion that is at once belied by Hussein's history (he's used WMD against both Iran and his own people; it seems unlikely he'd develop nuclear weapons just to have them) and too high a risk proposition to test. If Hussein were able to develop nuclear weapons and it turned out he were not a rational actor as we understand the term, the result would be the atomic destruction of at least one American or Israeli city. Are we prepared to take that risk?

I'm not. I don't like the idea of going to war with Iraq; while I personally face zero chance of getting involved in that fighting, I don't like the idea of sending many of the soldiers with whom I served into that fight. But the alternative is worse. Much as I personally dislike it, war is the logical option at this juncture.