The Many Compelling Reasons for War with Iraq

When it comes to reasons for removing Saddam Hussein, America has an embarrassment of riches, but fortunately they all lead to the same strategic goal: liberating Iraq by replacing his Baathist totalitarian regime with an Iraqi-created government based on the rule of law.

One source of uncertainty about President Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq is that people are asking two different kinds of questions: First, are the benefits of removing Saddam great enough to justify the dangers and costs of going to war? Second, do we have the right to attack Iraq because we think it will improve our security?

There are three sets of reasons why our security requires removing Saddam; any one of which would be sufficient. First is the danger presented by the combination of his growing ability to use biological and nuclear weapons, his hatred of America, and his demonstrated lack of concern for human life. As the president said, it is too dangerous to allow a government with Saddam’s record to have weapons that are so deadly. The New Republic argues this is reason enough; stop there, they say, and don’t confuse the issue with other reasons.

But there are other compelling reasons. Secondly, there is no chance that Arab and Muslim countries will feel they have to stop harboring terrorists and otherwise meet the needs of our war against terror if Saddam is not removed. While Saddam is in power he is an important support for all enemies of America; he is also a threat to any nearby government inclined to cooperate with us.

The third reason for removing Saddam is his connection to the terrorists who have been attacking America, especially al Qaeda. For the sake of the argument, we can assume that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, not Iraq, were the moving forces in both World Trade Center attacks, and other attacks against Americans. But there is substantial evidence that Iraq has supported al Qaeda both before and after September 11, knowing that al Qaeda was engaged in attacking America, which is tantamount to an act of war against America. Al Qaeda, of course, has also been helped by Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and probably Syria. We went after Afghanistan first. Somebody must be second.

In a criminal trial, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. No country can afford to use such a standard in deciding who has attacked it and needs to be stopped from attacking again. Some would argue that when 3,000 of our citizens are killed, we can and should act against the government we think is responsible even if we have little solid evidence—provided that the government is a dictatorship that in other ways speaks and acts like an enemy of America.

There is an easy way and a hard way to show our right to attack Iraq. The easy way is to emphasize that Iraq is a special case, maybe even a unique case, and therefore our right to attack Iraq isn’t a precedent that needs to make any other country afraid of us. We were authorized by the United Nations in 1991 to go to war with Iraq; as they have violated the terms of the ceasefire in that war, it is not over and we have the right to continue it. Iraq is also a country that has committed aggression against its neighbors twice, and used poison gas against both its own citizens and another country. While the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia may require that we generally ignore what a country does within its borders, they do not make an aggressor completely immune.

But if we don’t justify our action on the basis of Iraq’s practically unique outlaw status, we could argue, as Henry Kissinger did recently, that changes in technology and the world require some modification of the Westphalia principles. When an attack by a small country against a large one can result in as many as a million deaths, a country that has a reasonable basis for fearing such an attack has the right to act preemptively to prevent it. Or we can argue that our right of self-defense is enough to allow us to do whatever is necessary to compel countries to stop harboring terrorists. These claims are more ambitious than the claim that we have the right to act against Iraq because of what it has done in the past. And we would not apply these arguments to justify an attack against a democracy.

A good case, from the point of view of international law and morality, can be made for even these broader claims, provided that they are not carried to extremes. We would not want to argue that we have the right to attack a country, and certainly not a democracy, just because doing so would give us some small gain in the war against terror.

A number of veteran American statesmen, such as Brent Scowcroft, say, in effect, that while removing Saddam may be or may become essential, we should proceed prudently, making sure that all potentially necessary preparatory steps are taken. Among the concerns of these cautionary gray-beards are agreement of the American people, support from allies, acquiescence from Arab states, building up a large military force, and making reliable arrangements for the future governance of Iraq. Trying to get everything doubly assured in advance is the path of bureaucratic comfort, but prudence dictates the dangers of delay. When facing an enemy like Saddam, with America as vulnerable to terrorist attack as it is, every delay poses a great danger. Saddam’s ability to produce and deliver biological and nuclear weapons increases with time.

It will never be possible to convince all skeptics or to find a risk-free policy. But the message the Bush administration has delivered to Congress, the American people, and the world is clear: Saddam Hussein is building, and in the past has used, weapons of mass destruction. He has committed aggression against two of his neighbors; he has attempted to assassinate a former American president; and he actively cooperates with al Qaeda. He is not supported by his people or even by his own military forces, as he rules Iraq by totalitarian terror and torture. Because of his past actions, we and others have a right to remove him from power.

The safety of Americans requires that his regime be removed and Iraq be turned over to its people. Because the danger is increasing, and because the war against terror cannot proceed in the Middle East until he is removed, America must act quickly. America needs to liberate Iraq soon—for our safety, for the Iraqi people, and for the future of the Middle East.

This article appeared in the New York Sun on August 29, 2002, and is reprinted with permission.