Top 10 Reasons Not
to "Do" Iraq
from http://www.cato.org
Although President Bush has not formally decided to invade Iraq, the emotional
chest pounding in the press by anonymous high-level civilian hawks in his
administration has reached a crescendo. And while the hawks have made it seem
unpatriotic to raise questions about such an invasion since Sept. 11, a careful
analysis suggests that such a high-testosterone response should be avoided for
10 reasons:
1. High casualties may result at home or abroad. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld admits
that Iraq has biological
and chemical weapons. Faced with destruction of his regime (and possibly his
own death), Hussein would have every incentive to use them against U.S. forces, Israel, oil fields, or
even the U.S. homeland. If
rag-tag al Qaeda terrorists can operate on U.S. soil
undetected over a number of years, then more highly trained Iraqi intelligence
agents might be able to smuggle in chemical or biological weapons (and may be
already doing so). The U.S. military has
been unenthusiastic about undertaking an invasion of Iraq because of
fears of high casualties from urban fighting or from such Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
2. Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a
recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists. We should remember the worldwide
mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of
Iraq would play
right into al Qaeda's hands. Terrorists hope for an
excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more
supporters.
3. Invading and occupying Iraq would distract
the U.S. government from
the vital task of destroying an enemy that has actually attacked the U.S. homeland--al Qaeda. U.S. intelligence
agencies apparently have no hard evidence that links Iraq to the Sept. 11
attacks. How is an unprovoked U.S.
invasion of Iraq,
without international support, is relevant to the legitimate war
against America's terrorist
adversaries.
4. The threat from Iraq is exaggerated.
Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded
their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used
chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the
1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has
been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask
why the United States-half a world away-is more concerned about the Iraqi
threat than are Iraq's neighbors.
5. The terrorists groups that Iraq supports do not
focus their attacks on the United States. Such groups
concentrate their attacks on targets in the Middle East.
6. Although unsatisfying, the U.S.-led containment policy has
worked. If the United States could
successfully contain a superpower (USSR) for more than
40 years until it fell from within, it can continue to contain the dictator of
a small, poor nation until he dies or is overthrown.
7. A U.S. invasion of Iraq could
destabilize or topple friendly governments in Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Enflamed
Islamic populations could rise up against those regimes, which are closely
aligned with the United States.
8. The United States might be
isolated diplomatically or have to expend large amounts of diplomatic capital
to gain support for the invasion. The aforementioned friendly Islamic
nations-many of whose territories would be needed to launch any invasion-and
the European allies are almost universally unenthusiastic about such a military
operation. The United States had to offer Turkey about $5
billion in debt forgiveness and other financial inducements to obtain even
reluctant Turkish support for a U.S. attack on Iraq.
9. At a time of economic sluggishness and of red ink for the U.S. government, an
invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq could cost
billions of dollars, bust the budget and throw the U.S. economy into a
tailspin. The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars).
Because the United States would probably
be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize
the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time
around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be
expected to defray the costs.
10. The threat of war in the Middle East or a loss of
production from actual combat could cause the world price of oil to skyrocket.
Fighting in Iraq could reduce oil production there, as could any Iraqi attack
on the Kuwaiti and Saudi oilfields using missiles armed with weapons of mass
destruction.
After sober analysis, one must conclude that the civilian
political appointees in the administration should stop the tub-thumping for war
and listen to counsels of restraint by those in the military who would have to
fight and die in such a war. Hussein's survival in the 11 years after the Gulf
War--combined with his demonization by three U.S.
administrations--has led many to overstate the threat that despot presents and
understate the costs of scrapping the containment policy that has contained him
effectively.
Ivan Eland is the director of defense
policy studies at the Cato Institute
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to article
index