Newspaper logo  
 
 
   US & Iraq: Who's Deterring Whom?

SPEAKING OUT:

US & Iraq: Who's Deterring Whom?

by Sheldon Richman

The very willingness of the Bush administration to threaten bombing Hussein out of power is proof that he does not possess ready-to-launch nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. For if he did have them and were really the dangerous madman Mr. Bush says he is, the president would not risk Hussein's launching something nasty at Israel.
The key word in analyzing the confrontation between the U.S. government and Saddam Hussein is "deterrence." When we think of that word, we typically attach it to U.S. policies versus other governments. But I do not mean deterrence by the United States of Iraq. That would be nothing new. The U.S. government has the military might to blow Iraq to smithereens any time it chooses to do so. So does Israel. This is what makes the bogus alarm about Hussein's actual or potential use of weapons so ridiculous. What's he going to do with them? If we know anything about Hussein, it is that he likes his job and doesn't wish to lose it. The quickest way for him to lose it––not to mention his life––would be to use a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon against a U.S. interest or Israel.

I'm talking about another kind of deterrence: deterrence of the U.S. government by Iraq. Ridiculous? You be the judge.

The U.S. government has sought for many years to have the power to act without impediment in the Middle East (not to mention other regions). This has to do with oil and Israel, primarily. American administrations have wished for this discretion since the end of World War II, when the United States succeeded Great Britain as the prime superpower. But it has been limited by "the oil weapon," as we saw briefly in the energy events of the 1970s. It explains why the armchair militarists at National Review and The Weekly Standard have long wanted the U.S. government to seize the oil fields and now hope a war against Iraq will become a full-scale takeover of Arab and Iranian territory.

From this perspective, the U.S. government's worst fear is an unfriendly regime with a serious weapon it could use if attacked by the United States or Israel. Obviously, Iraq is the prime candidate to fill that role. Note that all of Hussein's threats have been conditional: If you attack us, we will do such and such. He has never threatened to initiate force against the United States.

Thus the Bush administration cannot let Hussein acquire serious weapons because they would thwart its (and all postwar presidents') ambitions in the region. There would be no way for Bush to carry out his father's declaration of 1990, after Hussein invaded Kuwait: "What we say, goes."

Motives are a secondary consideration. One may believe that American policymakers' ends are virtuous (I don't share that view), but still believe that improper, imperial methods are being used to achieve them. Ends and means must be assessed independently, or else we wind up declaring that the end justifies the means. After all, the U.S. government has nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is the one and only possessor of such weapons to have used them. Israel has a significant nuclear arsenal and has threatened to use it on at least one occasion, the October 1973 war. But most Americans would not think that justifies forcible regime changes in the United States and Israel. Why not? Because their ends are thought to be benign.

Similarly, Iraq's possession of serious weapons pose no threat to us if Hussein's motives are defensive, which we have every reason to believe. If Stalin and Mao dared not risk annihilation, it is unlikely that Hussein will.

There is an inescapable implication here. The very willingness of the Bush administration to threaten bombing Hussein out of power is proof that he does not possess ready-to-launch nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. For if he did have them and were really the dangerous madman Mr. Bush says he is, the president would not risk Hussein's launching something nasty at Israel. Wouldn't one assume that a desperate well-armed lunatic would feel he has nothing to lose by taking lots of people with him? Indeed, if Hussein does have such weapons at the ready, Mr. Bush's policy is the height of recklessness, since it would imperil thousands of innocent people.

A society is justified in going to war only when its survival is threatened. That is clearly not the case here. Mr. Bush's coming war is therefore unjustified.


Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of Ideas on Liberty magazine.


Copyright © 2003 The Baltimore Chronicle and The Sentinel. All rights reserved. We invite your comments, criticisms and suggestions.

Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.

This story was published on November 9, 2002.
  
NOVEMBER 2002
LOCAL NEWS
·NEWS BRIEFS
·CALENDARS:
· Hearing and Speech Agency to move to Seton Business Park
· Homewood Is Again ‘At Home’ on Charles Street
· Nonprofit Umbrella Group Calls for Increased State Support to Address Housing Crisis
· Legal Service Providers in Financial Crisis
· Poll Shows Marylanders Want Environmental Protections
ART & ENTERTAINMENT
·Book Review: LBJ at His Best and Worst
·Entertainment ‘Hot Picks’
·Book Review: War and Globalization by Michel Chossudovsky
SPEAKING OUT
·EDITORIALS:
·LETTERS
·Islamophobia: The New Menace
·Can God Bless America? Only if We Repent
· An Open Letter to America from a New Zealander
·Open Letter to Mayor Martin O'Malley and the Baltimore City Council
· Open Letter to The Economist Magazine
· Open-Ended Ballot Questions Deserve Defeat
· Why your vote won't matter
·The New Black Codes
· Muslims First, Citizens Second
·The Silent End of Memorials?
·US & Iraq: Who's Deterring Whom?
·Words of Wisdom from Arundhati Roy
·BATCH #4: Responses to the “Open Letter to America from a Canadian”
·The Politics of Low Attendance
·Guns! Guns! Guns!
·Nonprofits Sponsor Roundtable on Religious Persecution and Refugees
NEWS MEDIA CRITIQUE
·Media Shortchange Coverage of State Legislatures
·A Free Press, but for Whom?
·Times, NPR Change Their Take on DC Protests
·Miller (held over): In the Wake of 9-11, the American Press Has Embraced a ‘Demented Caesarism’
NATION & WORLD
· Harvard Study: Does Your Vote Count? Depends on Where You Cast It.
· Sonar and Marine Life Don’t Mix
· Human Rights Watch Faults US for Backing Afghan Warlord
· Logging Bill Before Congress Is Called “Political Armageddon for Forests”
· U.S Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact
FROM OTHER SITES
· Websites We Like!
· Outstanding Analysis & Perspective

Public Service Ads: