UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

31 July 2002

"National Debate on Iraq Needed" by Sens. Biden and Lugar

(Say Americans need to know risks of action and of inaction) (878)
The following op-ed, written by Senator Joseph R. Biden and Senator
Richard G. Lugar, was published in the New York Times on July 31, 2002
about the in-depth hearings at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
about Iraq:
(begin byliner)
Washington -- Through tragedy and pain, Americans have learned a great
deal this past year about why foreign policy matters. In recent
months, President Bush has made clear his determination to remove
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power -- a goal many of us in
Congress share. But to date we've seen only leaked reports of
competing military plans. These have reflected deep divisions within
the administration about whether and how to proceed. The time has come
for a serious discussion of American policy toward Iraq.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will begin in-depth hearings
today. While the White House supports the hearings -- which have been
coordinated closely by Democrats and Republicans on the committee --
administration officials will not participate at this time lest the
president be put in the position of having to make critical decisions
prematurely.
Without prejudging any particular course of action -- including the
possibility of staying with nonmilitary options -- we hope to start a
national discussion of some critical questions.
First, what threat does Iraq pose to our security? How immediate is
the danger? President Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam
Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It's true
that other regimes hostile to the United States and our allies have,
or seek to acquire, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What
makes Mr. Hussein unique is that he has actually used them -- against
his own people and against his Iranian neighbors. And for nearly four
years, Iraq has blocked the return of United Nations weapons
inspectors. We need to explore Mr. Hussein's track record in
acquiring, making and using weapons of mass destruction and the
likelihood he would share them with terrorists. We also need a clear
assessment of his current capabilities, including conventional forces
and weapons.
Second, what are the possible responses to the Iraqi threat? The
containment strategy pursued by the United States since the end of the
Persian Gulf war has kept Mr. Hussein boxed in. Continuing the
containment strategy, coupled with a tough weapons-inspection program,
is one option. But it raises the risk that Mr. Hussein will play
cat-and-mouse with inspectors while building more weapons and selling
them to those who would use them against us. If we wait for the danger
to become clear and present, it may be too late. That is why some
believe removing Mr. Hussein from power is the better course.
A military response poses other problems. Some argue that by attacking
Mr. Hussein, we might precipitate the very thing we are trying to
prevent: his use of weapons of mass destruction. There also is concern
he might try to spark a regional war. We must determine whether
resources can be shifted to a major military undertaking in Iraq
without compromising the war on terror elsewhere. We have to ask how
much military intervention would cost and consider its likely impact
on our economy. And we need to determine what level of support we are
likely to get from allies in the Middle East and Europe.
Third, when Saddam Hussein is gone, what would be our
responsibilities? This question has not been explored but may prove to
be the most critical. In Afghanistan, the war was prosecuted
successfully, but many of us believe our commitment to security and
reconstruction there has fallen short. Given Iraq's strategic
location, its large oil reserves and the suffering of the Iraqi
people, we cannot afford to replace a despot with chaos.
We need to assess what it would take to rebuild Iraq economically and
politically. Addressing these questions now would demonstrate to the
Iraqi people that we are committed for the long haul. Iraq's neighbors
would breathe easier if they knew the future had been thought through
in detail. The American people, whose sons and daughters may be put in
harm's way, need to have that same sense of assurance. Simply put, we
need to know everything possible about the risks of action and of
inaction. Ignoring these factors could lead us into something for
which the American public is wholly unprepared.
(Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the chairman and Richard Lugar the acting
ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.)
(end byliner)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list