WMD AND SADDAM HUSSEIN: PROPOSED US ACTION TOWARD IRAQ

1. WMD AND SADDAM HUSSEIN: PROPOSED US ACTION TOWARD IRAQ February 2003 Claire Leavitt

2. THE PROBLEM  Saddam Hussein, the Ba’athist dictator of Iraq (1979-), appears to be building and stockpilingchemical, biological and nuclear weapons (WMD), making his regime a pronounced threat to Middle Eastern and United States security

3. THE PROBLEM  Biological weapons: Live agents (bacteria, viruses) intended to infect and kill human beings Chemical weapons: Toxic chemicals in any form (liquid, solid, gas) intended to kill human beings Nuclear weapons: Explosive devices powered by the nuclear processes of fusion (e.g., hydrogen bomb) or fission (e.g., atomic bomb) of radioactive elements

4. THE QUESTION  How should the US address the possibility that Saddam possesses WMD? Should the United States pursue a policy of regime change in Iraq using US ground forces to depose Saddam or disarm Saddam via diplomatic channels (particularly the UN Security Council and UN weapons inspectors)?

5. HISTORICAL CONTEXT  During Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), Saddam known to have used chemical and biological weapons against Iranian civilians and the Kurdish minority in Iraq (prohibited under international law)  Saddam also pursued nuclear weapons program (though did not acquire a nuclear bomb at the time)

6. HISTORICAL CONTEXT  During Persian Gulf War (1990-1991), Saddam known to have chemical and biological weapons at his disposal, but did not use them against the Kuwaitis  2 August 1990: Saddam’s forces invade sovereign nation of Kuwait  6 August 1990: UN Resolution 668 imposes economic sanctions on Iraq  7 August 1990: President George H. W. Bush sends US troops to Saudi Arabian border (Operation Desert Shield)  16 January 1991: US launches Operation Desert Storm after Iraq fails to respond to UN ultimatum to withdraw

7. HISTORICAL CONTEXT  UNSC post-Gulf War disarmament conditions:1) Saddam and the Iraqi government must unconditionally remove and destroy all chemical and biological weapons and >150km-range ballistic missiles 2) Iraq must submit, within 15 days of the resolution, a report detailing the locations of all weapons and plans to destroy them 3) Iraq must submit to on-site inspections from the UN Special Commission on Iraq 4) Iraq must abide by its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) and agree not to develop nuclear weapons (submit report to UNSG and IAEA)

8. HISTORICAL CONTEXT  UN Special Commission weapons inspections timeline:  1995: Iraq attempts to buy growth mediums (for biological weapons) from British company; international community fearful that Iraq may be planning to weaponize smallpox 1998: UN chief weapons inspector claims “Iraq is not disarming;”UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq prior to President Clinton’s 4-day bombing campaign to destroy weapons facilities 2002: UN chief weapons inspector now claims 90-95% of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons (and LR ballistic missiles) have been destroyed despite prolonged absence of UN inspectors

9. EVIDENCE: UNITED NATIONS  2002: Saddam invites UN weapons inspector Hans Blix back into Iraq to conduct inspections (UN Resolution 1441 permits new inspections to commence); burden on Iraq to prove WMD were gone January 2003: Blix and the UN inspections committee claim there is no evidence to suggest Saddam has active WMD programs; however, some 1980s/1990s weapons material has not been accounted for

10. EVIDENCE: US INTELLIGENCE  2001, 2002 and 2003: Iraq has attempted to acquire high-grade aluminum tubes (prohibited by the UN); could possibly be used to build centrifuges intended to separate and enrich uranium for nuclear weapons 2001: Mohammed Atta (9/11 mastermind) may have met with senior Iraqi officials in Prague  2002: Iraq attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium powder from Niger

11. POLICY OPTIONS: REGIME CHANGE US troops could depose Saddam in under three weeks and destroy his WMD stockpiles  Pros: Saddam is unpredictable and cannot be trusted—deposing him would ensure Middle Eastern and global safety; disarmament of a likely nuclear or pre-nuclear rogue nation; liberation of Iraqi people  Cons: Regime change in Iraq would commit the US to an indefinite occupation of Iraq and ensure the loss of American and Iraqi lives; Iraqis aren’t happy under Saddam, but what would replace him?

12. POLICY OPTIONS: DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION UN approves new round of economic sanctions (likely); Saddam agrees to strict compliance with UN weapons inspectors’ schedule Pros: Support of the international community and longstanding Western European allies; commitment to international law; no military engagement and loss of American and Iraqi lives  Cons: In short, another Persian Gulf War; Iraq has already proven it cannot be trusted

13. THE “LEAST WORST OPTION” We propose a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iraq’s possible non-compliance with UN weapons mandates, backed up by the threat of American force should Saddam defy UN inspectors  Initiating a policy of regime change is simply too risky and would cost too many lives (combatant and civilian), particularly when the WMD intelligence is not ironclad

14. DETAILS • UNSC would unanimously and immediately approve a resolution authorizing a new round of economic sanctions against Iraq • UN Special Commission would resume its inspectionsof Iraqi weapons sites and require Saddam to abide by a strict schedule with a zero-strikes compliance policy

15. DETAILS 3) US would issue a formal warning to Saddam to comply with the UN weapons inspectors and prove he has completely disarmed, i.e., he has:  Destroyed all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons facilities  Made no attempts to acquire materials used for building these weapons Only then would US and UN lift sanctions

16. DETAILS 4) US intelligence community, aided by European and regional allies, would commit to closely monitoring Saddam’s regime and would be prepared to consider multilateral military action in the event of noncompliance

17. INTERNATIONAL LIBERALISM: REVIEW  The tenets of liberalism: All people are created equal and have identical rights in nature  Most people are good, but they need to be protected against the few bad apples who will violate their natural rights; rights are meaningless without protection  Thus, people submit to limited government—they give up some freedom and some independence in exchange for protection of natural rights  The only legitimate government to which people may submit must be democratic and derive its authority from the people themselves

18. INTERNATIONAL LIBERALISM: REVIEW  International liberalism applies these principles to the global arena  Nation-states must give up some independence to submit to the protections (from warfare) that international law allows  All nation-states as well as global government should be democratic  There are certain universal values (equivalent to the rights of people in nature) that apply to all nation states and should be universally respected

19. INTERNATIONAL LIBERALISM: REVIEW  Why did international liberalism fail? Wilson refused to compromise in order to secure Senate approval of the League of Nations  The international legal framework (incl. the League of Nations) devised after World War I was based on victors’ justice  Wilson’s principles of liberalism were not universally but instead selectively applied

20. PRINCIPLES OF REALISM  We should analyze the world as it is, not as we’d like it to be Evidence-based knowledge—looking at history—is the best way to figure out the rules of international politics What does history tell us about the world?  Athens, Melos and Sparta during the Peloponnesian War (431-401 BCE): What are the lessons here?

21. PRINCIPLES OF REALISM  The lesson from the conquest of Melos: Morality and justice play no role in international politics; if politicians claim moral superiority, they are simply trying to win favor/support for their real goals…. ….which are always to advance their nation’s interests; all nations act in order to defend or increase their power on the world stage

22. PRINCIPLES OF REALISM  Types of power: Hard (military, economic)  Soft (influence, identity) Nation-states may either choose to merely defend their power or actively seek to acquire it at other nations’ expenses

23. PRINCIPLES OF REALISM  Is global peace attainable? Liberalism as a way to effect world peace is utopian  Because people and nation-states act in the name of power, and because there is no global government with enforcement power, war is inevitable—but it does NOT necessarily have to be frequent

24. PRINCIPLES OF REALISM  Wars and violence can be minimized if power in the world is balanced, or equally divided between two or more nation-states E.g.: The Greek city-states (450 BCE)  E.g.: The Italian city-states (15th century)  E.g.: Europe during the 19th century (multipolarity; no major war that embroiled all the European nation-states)  E.g.: The US-Soviet Union during the Cold War (bipolarity)

25. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS  Does the European Union show that the liberal dream (states relinquishing some independence to live together in peace) is still alive? Or can the EU be defended in realist terms? Can every action a nation takes be viewed through a strategic lens (i.e., is everything a nation does for strategic purposes, i.e., to defend or increase its own power)?

26. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS  Why do nations engage in wars that (especially in hindsight) actually hurt their strategic priorities? Why did the US escalate the war in Vietnam in 1964?  Can “fighting for principle”be strategic?  Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?