Issues: Iraq

September 12, 2002

Dear Member of Congress,

The President and administration officials are now coming to Congress to try to win your support for taking unilateral, preemptive military action, if necessary, to topple the Iraqi government. We at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) hope that you will critically examine the President's arguments for war and conclude, as we do, that military action against Iraq is not the way to advance U.S. security and international peace, and that such action could, in fact, undermine these goals in the long run.

What is the threat that would justify a unilateral, preemptive military strike? The government of Iraq hardly poses an imminent threat to the survival of the U.S. Iraq has no nuclear weapons. The prestigious London International Institute for Strategic Studies just reported that Iraq would require an outside source to supply fissile material for it to produce a nuclear weapon in the near-term. The Iraqi government may have some chemical and biological weapons, but it has hardly any means to deliver these weapons and cannot threaten the survival of any country in the region, let alone the U.S. Thus, there is no compelling reason for a preemptive, unilateral military attack.

Why won't deterrence work in the case of Iraq as it has elsewhere? The administration has failed to show why deterrence will not work in the case of Iraq as it has with North Korea, Iran, the former Soviet Union, and China. Deterrence, in the form of a letter from the first President Bush to Saddam Hussein just prior to the 1991 Gulf War, worked by persuading Saddam that the U.S. would retaliate massively to any use by Iraq of chemical and biological weapons. Today, the government of Iraq knows that one false move will transform world opinion against it and instantly create an armed international coalition determined to forcefully bring an end to the regime. There is much evidence that Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant and that he exercised extremely poor judgment when he invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. However, based on the best evidence available--his actions--he is quite rational and not suicidal.

What is the record of U.S. success in picking allies and installing democracies in other countries? In a word, dismal. This is especially true if the intervention has been virtually unilateral-- witness Iran (1953), Chile (1973), Afghanistan (1980s), Nicaragua (1980s), Iraq (1988), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Somalia (1993), and Haiti (1994). The jury remains out on the U.S.-Northern Alliance operation in Afghanistan (2001-2002) that toppled the Taliban. Even the use of non-coercive means to influence regime change has proven uncertain. Four days before June 2002 elections in Bolivia, the U.S. ambassador warned the populace against supporting the Socialist candidate. Popular support for the Socialist increased by 198 percent. And when President Bush recently called on Palestinians to reject Yasser Arafat in the January 2003 elections or face dire economic consequences, Arafat's waning popularity predictably revived.

Is there any assurance that the next regime will be any better than the current one with respect to democracy, human rights, disarmament, or maintaining peaceful relations with its neighbors? None at all. First, there is no alternative political leadership that has legitimacy among the diverse groups of Kurds, Shi'ite, Sunni, and other religious and ethnic groups inside Iraq or among the exile community. Second, Saddam's heirs-apparent, to the extent he has any, are as involved as he is in violating the human and political rights of the Iraqi people. Third, looking out from Baghdad, they see military threats from Iran in the east and Israel in the west, threats they believe they must counter.

Is the U.S. willing to pay the full cost of this war and the subsequent long-term occupation of Iraq? To invade Iraq may require 250,000-300,000 troops. The first war in Iraq (1991) cost $65 billion, and most of this was paid by coalition partners. How much will a bigger war -- a war to capture Baghdad -- cost now? Further, 75,000 troops or more will be needed for follow-on peacekeeping, at a cost of $15-20 billion per year. Is the U.S. willing to carry this burden alone?

Will a preemptive, unilateral U.S. military strike against Iraq help reduce acts of international terror? This is no way to reduce terrorism. Nor is it a way to advance international cooperation to bring to justice those who helped carry out the attacks of September 11. No evidence has yet been presented that links Saddam Hussein's regime to al Qaeda. More likely, such a strike will inflame anti-U.S. hatred throughout the Arab and Muslim world, stimulating recruitment and attacks by extremists.

Has the U.S. exhausted all alternatives to war? No. The UN has so far not been included by the administration in any positive manner. President Bush is to speak Sept. 12 to the General Assembly in an attempt to make a case for future military action and to try to rally support for the U.S. cause. Whether that support will coalesce remains in doubt. Most members believe (as we at FCNL do) that the resumption of rigorous UN weapons inspections is the essential next step for the international community to pursue. Toward that end, just as the Iraqi government must assure free access to suspected sites, so the U.S. government must not use the inspections process as simply the next step to war and regime change. It is time for the inspections to proceed and the economic sanctions to end.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has said that the U.S. does not have the luxury of doing nothing about Saddam Hussein and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. We agree, but that agreement does not settle the question of what should be done.

War is not the answer and could make things much worse. The Iraqi people have suffered enough. A bombing and invasion of Baghdad alone would put the lives of six million people at risk. A preemptive, unilateral U.S. military attack would be seen by many around the world as an act of aggression. It would violate the UN Charter, inflame anti-U.S. extremism throughout the region, and set a dangerous precedent that other countries might follow. Instead of war, weapons inspections, diplomatic engagement, a resumption of normal economic relations, and multilateral action for arms control and disarmament in the region offer a better prospect for U.S. and regional security interests.

Sincerely,

Joe Volk
Executive Secretary

Reviewed: 09/06/2005

This Issue's Index