Port 80

In September 2002, I wrote this piece for the Flyer News in response to a number of the editorials I had seen regarded the (then impending) war in Iraq. Since this weblog is now serving as a collection of my essays, I’ve taken the liberty of reposting it here. The focus of the article is self-explanatory. A brief note: This is the article as it was submitted, not the article as it appeared. The differences are minor, but there was some editing in the final version.

Iraq Is A Threat That Cannot Be Ignored

Over the past weeks, we have heard many voices questioning whether an attack on Iraq would be in the best interests of the United States, or whether such an attack would be morally permissible. Many have argued that Iraq is not really a threat, and that the current focus on Iraq is a waste of energy and resources. Unfortunately, as much as we might hope that this is so, the facts do not support this conclusion. Over the past eleven years, Iraq and Saddam Hussein have demonstrated a clear desire to obtain and expand a WMD (weapon of mass destruction) capability.

After the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the UN Special Commission was established (Security Council Resolution 687) as part of the cease-fire agreement. UNSCOM had the task of supervising the destruction of Iraq’s WMD program, beginning by determining what weapons Iraq had produced, proceeding to destroy those weapons or render them harmless, and then finishing its work by ensuring that Iraq did not attempt to reacquire WMDs. The first stage of this process, in which Iraq would declare what weapons it had produced, was supposed to be finished on April 18 - 1991. Eleven years later, we still do not have a complete picture of what weapons Iraq has produced. Additionally, the UN specified that UNSCOM inspectors would have free access to any site they requested access to within Iraq. This, of course, has not happened, as inspectors were barred from an ever-increasing list of sites and finally barred from Iraq entirely. This resistance to inspections is in spite of the fact that the much-derided sanctions of Iraq are required by law to end once UNSCOM completes its mission in Iraq. It appears that Saddam Hussein cares more about feeding anthrax cultures than he does feeding his own citizens.

Anthrax, of course, is only one of the many agents which Iraq has developed. UNSCOM has supervised the destruction of 295 tons of mustard gas, 76 tons of tabun, and 40 tons of sarin nerve gas. An additional 1.5 tons of VX nerve gas, which is unaccounted for, brings the total to 412.5 tons of chemical agents. This number does not include the nearly 128,000 chemical warheads Iraq admitted to producing, many of which had been filled with these agents. And of course, these numbers do not describe Iraq’s biowarfare program, the existence of which was not even admitted until 1995, and the extent of which has been described by no less than three “Full, Final and Complete” disclosures from Iraq, none of which have held up to scrutiny. What knowledge there is indicates that Iraq produced and weaponized anthrax, botulin toxin, and aflatoxin, and that Iraq was working to develop even more agents. Bear in mind that this information is based only on what has been found in spite of Iraq’s resistance to inspections. What more is Iraq trying to hide by keeping weapons inspectors out?

What we are faced with is a country with a declared animosity against the United States which has developed WMDs in the past, and which probably has WMDs now. In addition, Iraq’s expulsion of UNSCOM inspectors indicates that Iraq is working to further expand its WMD programs, even at the cost of considerable suffering for Iraq’s citizens. Also bear in mind that Iraq has used WMDs in the past, during the Iran-Iraq war and against Kurds in Iraq. Given this, the question is not “Does Iraq pose a threat to the United States and our allies?” but “How can we stop Iraq before they have capabilities more frightening than what they already possess?” I cannot say that military action is definitely the answer, but I can say that the range of options is shrinking. Furthermore, so is the window for action. If launching an attack against Iraq is difficult now, how difficult will it be when Iraq fully restores its WMD programs and has the ability to hold millions hostage in the Middle East, Europe, and the United States? Can we allow such destructive weaponry to be held by an autocratic dictator with a tendency to wage war against his neighbors? These are the questions that the world must face. Whatever answer we reach, ignoring the threat is not an option.