U.S.-Iraq Policy: Has the Die for War Been Cast?

This article was written for inclusion in the July-September 2002 issue of the Mennonite Central Committee Peace Office Newsletter, and is used by permission of the author and the Newsletter.

Background

For more than a decade, "smart" bombs, sanctions, and harsh rhetoric marked U.S. policy toward Iraq. After supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Iran during the 1980s, the United States did an abrupt turnabout when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein sent troops into Kuwait in August 1990.

The U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991 succeeded in driving Iraq from Kuwait. But the war also killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and devastated Iraq's infrastructure. Moreover, broad-based U.N. economic sanctions--originally imposed in 1990 to urge Iraqi withdrawal--have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children and severely hindered efforts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

Since the Gulf War, U.S. policy has focused on containing Saddam Hussein, fearing that he will again build weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile capabilities that will threaten other countries. Through the United Nations, the U.S. has pushed for weapons inspections and tight economic sanctions. Additionally, the U.S. and Great Britain have patrolled "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq, frequently bombing Iraqi targets.

Expanding Policy Goals

Under both President Clinton and the current President Bush, U.S. policy goals have expanded from simply ridding Iraq of the capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction to include ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

These dual objectives offer little incentive for the government of Iraq to cooperate with the new weapons inspection plan currently under discussion at the United Nations. At a State Department meeting this spring, U.S. officials told the MCC Washington Office that, even if Saddam Hussein cooperates with a new weapons inspection regime, the United States will not rule out overthrowing the Iraqi government.

Some analysts suspect that, as a pretext for attacking Iraq, the United States will insist on weapons inspection conditions that are so invasive that Iraq could not possibly agree.

As further justification for ousting Saddam Hussein, President Bush has labeled Iraq as part of a global "axis of evil." Even though the U.S. has established no links between Iraq and the September 11 attacks, President Bush's "war on terrorism" has been broadened from bringing to justice those who planned and supported the attacks to taking preemptive action against those who may pose future threats.

Indeed, for many analysts, the question is no longer if the United States will attack Iraq, but when and how. President Bush has so publicly and repeatedly threatened to overthrow Saddam Hussein that many believe Bush has backed himself in a corner. One Republican member of Congress told the Washington Office, "Don't underestimate the personal dimension of this issue. Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate this president's father."

"An unsuccessful campaign would be simply unacceptable to the Bush administration," according to the Center for Defense Information. "Thus, any offensive would be an all-out, no-holds-barred war that would use overwhelming force and every conventional asset in the U.S. inventory to assure success."

Up to 300,000 U.S. troops would be needed for such an effort. The Bush administration is also studying whether mini-nuclear weapons could be used to penetrate underground bunkers.

The Point of No Return?

But is war against Iraq inevitable? When Iraq policy analysts gathered recently in Washington, D.C., to discuss this question, most agreed that war is "likely but not certain." If it happens, military action seems most likely during the fall of 2002 or spring of 2003. But several factors could make it difficult for President Bush to attack Iraq.

1. Internal debate.

   According to a May 24 Washington Post report, the top military leaders at the Pentagon are now raising serious questions about the wisdom of a war with Iraq. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recognize that a military action to unseat Saddam Hussein could result in the loss of thousands of U.S. troops and even more Iraqi civilians.

   There is strong anti-Iraq sentiment in Congress. But some members of Congress will not support a U.S. war against Iraq without a full and open debate on the topic. Others privately raise questions about the potential fallout. Will it further destabilize the Middle East? How will it affect U.S. relationships with Arab governments?

    

2. Little international support.

   Canada and most European allies oppose a U.S. invasion of Iraq. And Arab governments--even those not particularly sympathetic to Saddam Hussein--are unanimously opposed to a U.S. war against Iraq. They believe that U.S. military action will harm Iraqi civilians who have already suffered too much, and that the "Arab street" would perceive this as proof of a strong U.S. anti-Muslim bias--especially given the robust U.S. support for Israel. Saudi Arabia could deny basing rights to the U.S. military, making any large-scale action against Iraq very difficult.

    

3. Strong public opposition.

   One congressional staffer who has traveled to Iraq says the best way to prevent a war against Iraq is if the religious community "gives moral cover" for members of Congress to take a courageous public stand opposing war. "The religious community is the one group that could make a difference with Congress," she said. But there are many minds to change. In a recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, 57 percent said the U.S. "should take military action against Iraq."

What can church members do that might make a difference? Already Mennonites in northern Indiana organized a national day of "prayer and faxing" on Palm Sunday. More than 4,000 faxes were sent to Bush and Congress opposing war against Iraq.

Educational events and letters or op ed pieces in newspapers could emphasize:

	The Iraqi people have already suffered two decades of war and economic sanctions. According to MCC partners in Iraq, for most Iraqis, already "every day is an emergency."
	War will only further destabilize an already explosive Middle East. Indeed, war cannot create the conditions for long-term peace and security. Seeds of war will only produce weeds of further violence.
	Overthrowing other governments violates international law. How can the United States expect other countries to uphold the rule of law if it shows blatant disregard itself?
	War will make the world more dangerous for North Americans. Anti-American sentiment is already strong in many parts of the world. Expanded U.S. military attacks only further promote the image of the U.S. as a domineering superpower that must be brought to its knees.
	There are good alternatives to war. Respectful dialogue can replace threats and propaganda. Ending sanctions against Iraq is more likely to produce positive and stabilizing changes for the Iraqi people than seeking to overthrow the Iraqi president. A regional approach to weapons of mass destruction is more just and holds greater promise for long-term stability in the Middle East.

J. Daryl Byler is director of the MCC Washington (D.C.) office.