Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to U.S. security and the United States must act decisively and quickly to remove him from power, policy experts Robert Kagan and William Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2001).

“It is almost impossible to imagine any outcome for the world both plausible and worse than the disease of Saddam with weapons of mass destruction,” wrote Kagan, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Kristol, the magazine’s editor.  They argued that the threat Hussein poses is worse than the potential consequences of overthrowing him.

The threat posed by Iraq is “enormous” and grows daily, the authors wrote.  To allow Hussein to remain in control would allow other regimes involved in terrorism and weapons of mass destruction to expand. 

Containment and deterrence concepts no longer apply because Hussein could secretly provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

“How in the world do we deter that?” the authors wrote.  Hussein has a history of assisting terrorist organizations, including Abu Nidal (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2001).  Reports from defectors and former U.N. weapons inspectors confirm that a terrorist training camp exists in Iraq (see GSN, Nov. 8, 2001). 

Iraq’s WMD Capability

Although U.S. leaders disagree on how to deal with Iraq (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2001), no one debates the basic facts of Iraq’s capabilities, Kagan and Kristol wrote.  Iraq has the ability to build nuclear bombs in the near future, according to U.N. weapons inspectors and Western intelligence sources (see GSN, Dec. 19, 2001).  German intelligence services estimated in December 2000 that Iraq would have three nuclear bombs by 2005 — an estimate the authors called “optimistic.”

Iraq has chemical and biological weapons programs in addition to programs to develop nuclear weapons, the authors wrote (see GSN, Dec. 21, 2001).  U.N. inspectors estimated in 1998 that Iraq controlled 41 sites where it could produce VX nerve agent in a few weeks and enough material to produce over 200 tons of VX, which could kill at least hundreds of thousands of people.  U.S. officials have said that Iraq built factories which the United States suspected were used to produce chemical and biological weapons. 

Iraq also has the equipment and technology to produce 350 liters of anthrax per week, according to the Federation of American Scientists.  The country produced 8,500 liters of anthrax in the five years before Desert Storm.

“We can only imagine how much anthrax Saddam Hussein may have at his disposal today,” the authors wrote (see GSN, Dec. 13, 2001). 

U.S. Must Act Fast and Strong

Any U.S. military action against Iraq would have to “succeed quickly,” Kagan and Kristol wrote.  Hussein could attack a neighbor, probably Israel, with chemical or biological weapons once an attack on Iraq began, so U.S. and allied forces would have to “move with lightning speed” to capture launch sites in Iraq (see GSN, Dec. 17, 2001).

U.S. forces could not possibly locate every missile, however, so an attack would have to be fast and hard enough to make Iraqi military leaders believe Hussein’s regime was ending.

“An Iraqi commander may think twice before making himself an accomplice to Saddam’s genocidal plans” by firing a missile carrying weapons of mass destruction, if the commander believes the United States would defeat Hussein, the authors said.

The United States could not apply the same military approach that worked in Afghanistan, such as airstrikes, limited ground troops and reliance on local opposition groups, to attack Iraq.  Significant U.S. ground troops would probably be necessary, the authors wrote.

Attacking Iraq with cooperation and support from allies would be ideal, but the United States must be willing to act unilaterally if necessary, they said (Kagan/Kristol, Weekly Standard, Jan. 21).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top