UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

23 December 2002

"United on the Risk of a War with Iraq," by Paul Wolfowitz

(Op-ed article from the Washington Post) (990)
(This byliner by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz first
appeared in the Washington Post December 23, 2002, and is in the
public domain. No republication restrictions.)
(begin byliner)
United on the Risks of a War With Iraq
By Paul Wolfowitz
(The writer is deputy secretary of defense.)
A Dec. 18 front-page article "Projection on Fall of Hussein Disputed"
attempted to describe a split that simply does not exist between the
senior civilian and military leadership over planning for potential
war in Iraq. The Post's reporter attributed variously to me, to the
"Wolfowitz School" and to the "Wolfowitz view" the contention that
Saddam Hussein's government "will fall almost immediately upon being
attacked."
That has never been my view, nor is it the view of the senior civilian
leadership in the Department of Defense. The Post's reporter had
access to those facts, but The Post's readers, including influential
people here, in Baghdad and around the world, also are entitled to
them.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks have been
pushing others hard to think through all the implications of the
possible use of force, to think carefully about all the ways in which
things can go wrong. That is the only prudent way to plan.
The day before the story appeared, Rumsfeld was asked in a press
conference about the assumption that "Iraqi forces might fold
quickly." He said that is "not the way to look at this situation.
First of all, any war is a dangerous thing, and it puts people's lives
at risk. And second, I think that it is very difficult to have good
knowledge as to exactly how Iraqi forces will behave." (Those who are
interested in seeing all of these views at greater length are invited
to visit www.defenselink.mil.)
President Bush has not made any decision about the use of force to
achieve the goal of disarmament of Iraq's arsenal of terror. We still
are trying to achieve that goal by peaceful means precisely because we
understand the risks involved in any use of force.
Saddam Hussein has demonstrated an unparalleled ruthlessness,
unpredictability and willingness to sacrifice his military and his
people for the sake of his own survival. He has shown no compunction
about using weapons of mass terror in the past, either against his own
people or Muslim neighbors. He has shown a willingness to use sacred
Muslim religious sites to hide his weapons, thereby committing
sacrilege. And he has no conscience or mercy when it comes to the
weakest and most innocent members of society -- the children of Iraq.
For these reasons, we in the Department of Defense -- at all levels,
military and civilian -- have been thinking carefully for months about
all the ways in which things can go wrong, because that is the only
prudent way to plan.
It is also true that it would not be responsible to plan only for the
worst case. Things could break in a more favorable direction, and we
need to be prepared for that too so that we do not proceed on
assumptions that lead to unnecessary American or Iraqi deaths. But the
best way to handle that is to be prepared for the worst things that
could happen -- which I and other administration officials have been
emphasizing repeatedly.
Every significant aspect of the military planning has been the subject
of intense discussion among Rumsfeld, Franks, Gen. Richard B. Myers
and the president. They have no differences concerning the size or
nature of the military forces required, should it become necessary to
disarm Iraq by force. Nor do they have any false sense that anyone can
predict the course of events. It has never been so.
One concern that is much greater than it was during the Persian Gulf
War 11 years ago is the danger that Saddam Hussein might actually use
his most terrible weapons. This serious threat leads us to conclude
that this regime is too dangerous to leave indefinitely in possession
of those weapons of mass terror while it acquires even more.
War is brutal, risky and unpredictable; anyone who does not understand
that should not be involved in military planning. On the wall of my
office I hung a painting depicting the Civil War battlefield of
Antietam on the day after what was the bloodiest single day in U.S.
history. It is a reminder of what it means for Americans to risk their
lives in combat for their country.
The president needs no reminder about what a terrible thing war is. He
has had to comfort the widows of brave men killed in Afghanistan, and
he knows what it would be like to comfort widows if there were a war
in Iraq. But he also has comforted the families who lost loved ones in
the World Trade Center and at the Pentagon. He can imagine what it
would be like to face the survivors of a catastrophic terrorist attack
on the United States with chemical or biological or even nuclear
weapons.
No course open to the United States is free of risk. The question is
how to weigh the risks of action against the risks of inaction and to
be fully aware of both.
One risk that is often exaggerated is the risk of what might happen in
Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime. It is hard to
believe that the liberation of the talented people of one of the most
important Arab countries in the world from the grip of one of the
world's worst tyrants will not be an opportunity for Americans and
Arabs and other people of goodwill to begin to move forward on the
task that the president has described as "building a just and peaceful
world beyond the war on terror."
(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