Attacking Iraq Now Would Harm War on Terror

Attacking Iraq Now Would Harm War on Terror

by Joseph Nye
March 12, 2002
Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal

British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday endorsed Vice President Dick
Cheney''s proposals for establishing a tougher policy toward Iraq. "The
threat," said Mr. Blair, "will have to be addressed," though a timetable was
conspicuously missing. Mr. Cheney''s proposal is likely to receive a far less
friendly reception in some of the Middle Eastern nations he will be visiting
in the coming days.

Iraq has a record of supporting terrorism and violating international
agreements. If it develops nuclear weapons, it will pose an enormous peril
to us and to others in the region. Middle Eastern leaders are fully aware of
this reality and many have little sympathy for Saddam Hussein. Their
skepticism with respect to President Bush''s policies stems from their belief
that his administration is planning to overthrow the government of Iraq by
unilateral means.

Skeptics here and abroad argue that the costs of such action will be too
high and the outcome uncertain. It would be better to continue our policy
of containment. If we could deter a nuclear-armed Soviet Union in the
Cold War, we can deter an Iraq that develops nuclear weapons a few
years from now. But the Cold War analogy is misleading. Saddam has no
intercontinental missiles. His most likely delivery system is through
terrorists smuggling weapons into American cities. Who knows how well he
will control them, or what risks he will take? After all, he once tried to
assassinate a U.S. president.

At the same time, mounting a military campaign against Iraq at this point
poses a significant problem for our war on terrorism. Right now, according
to recent testimony by CIA Director George Tenet, the clear and present
danger is posed by the al Qaeda network, which has cells in some 50
countries. We have probably destroyed only 20% to 30% of the network,
and our military prowess is not the most effective way to deal with what
remains. We are not about to bomb Hamburg, Jakarta or Kuala Lumpur.
Wrapping up al Qaeda will require painstaking civilian cooperation across
borders among intelligence, law enforcement, financial, customs and
immigration agencies. Unilateral military operations against Iraq that divert
our attention and weaken the willingness of others to work with us would
be counterproductive.

So what is to be done? We need to take our time to build a multilateral
case against Saddam Hussein that does not rest on thin reeds like the
reported meeting of hijacker Mohammed Atta with an Iraqi intelligence
official in Prague, or suspicions that Atta might have been behind the
anthrax attacks last autumn. After all, the FBI now seems to think that
the prime suspect in the anthrax case may be an American scientist.

Instead, we should focus on President Bush''s syllogism that a government
that has supported terrorism and violated its agreements in the past must
not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Iraq''s efforts to do so are a
clear violation of the multilateral Non-Proliferation Treaty that it has
signed. Moreover, since 1998, Iraq has been defying the United Nations by
refusing to admit and give free rein to international inspectors as required
under Security Council Resolution 687.

Such a private and public diplomatic campaign should aim to convince
other nations that Saddam Hussein''s actions present an immense peril to
them, just as they do to us. None of us can afford to allow him to develop
such capabilities, given the chance that they could leak to terrorists. Not
all countries need be convinced. Turkey and Kuwait (and perhaps Saudi
Arabia) will be necessary for an effective military campaign. The support
of our NATO allies and other states in the region will of course be
important to the legitimacy of our actions. And with the right guarantees
against economic losses, it may be possible to bring Russia along.

Fortunately, we probably have a year or more to prepare a multilateral
case based on demands for free-ranging inspection. Such an approach
may not appeal to the impatient hawks who argue that the lesson of
Afghanistan is that we can conduct the war on terrorism by military
means with little help from others. It is true that our military forces
succeeded with only minor assistance from NATO allies such as Britain.
But the real lesson of Afghanistan is that military success only deals with
the visible part of the iceberg. When pro-American conservative politicians
like European Union Commissioner Chris Patten warn us against going into
"unilateralist overdrive," we should take heed. Failure to do so runs the
risk of reducing the cooperation we need for a prolonged campaign against
terrorism.

Shortly after the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked, former
President George H.W. Bush said that "just as Pearl Harbor awakened this
country from the notion that we could somehow avoid the call of duty and
defend freedom in Europe and Asia in World War II, so, too, should this
most recent surprise attack erase the concept in some quarters that
America can somehow go it alone in the fight against terrorism or in
anything else for that matter."

George W. Bush should follow his father''s advice and take the time to
build a multilateral case against Saddam Hussein.

Joseph S. Nye , dean of Harvard''s Kennedy School of Government, is
author of "The Paradox of American Power: Why the World''s Only
Superpower Can''t Go It Alone" (Oxford University Press, 2002).