Published February 12th, 2007 by Future Atlas
Times up: commentary — 10 Reasons Not to Invade Iraq
Written four years ago today, on February 12, 2003, the month before the invasion.
————————————————————–
My job as a strategic analyst is to think about the future. I have never been more worried for America.
Colin Powell’s recent speech to the UN rehashed the reasons to invade Iraq, but ignored all the reasons not to.
Here are 10 of them.
1. Invading Iraq helps our terrorist enemies.
Terrorism requires only people and money; September 11 was carried out with 19 men, $500,000, and boxcutters. Al Qaeda will receive a huge boost in recruits and funds if America invades Iraq. As military analyst Anthony Cordesman said, “If you get the reputation as an international bully, you create a new underpinning for every extremist organization, terrorist movement and anti-U.S. group that is out there.” [note 1]
Invading Iraq means less attention to defending America against terrorists. CIA officers fighting al Qaeda “don’t want to do this war,” a former CIA official told the Washington Post. [2]
Iraq itself will be a better environment for al Qaeda after an invasion, no matter how it turns out. Saddam’s police state oppresses Muslim fundamentalists. Al Qaeda is no friend to Saddam: an al Qaeda video found in Afghanistan explained why Saddam is their enemy. In his address released in February 2003, Osama bin Laden refers to Saddam Hussein and his regime as “infidels.” [3]
The Bush administration has continued to claim ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, for obvious reasons, but the New York Times reports that some CIA analysts remain skeptical of the evidence. [4]
2. An invasion increases the chance that terrorists will gain weapons of mass destruction.
Powell suggested that Iraq might provide chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons to terrorists. The official assessment of our own intelligence agencies is that this is unlikely unless the United States attacks Iraq. [5] In other words, Bush’s plans are the most plausible way that our terrorist enemies will acquire Iraqi weapons. “Saddam is … unlikely to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists,” said President George H.W. Bush’s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. [6]
Making many chemical and biological weapons is easy. All it takes is a little money. The more people who hate us, the more likely we will be targeted with such deadly weapons.
3. An invasion solves none of our problems.
Even if we kill Saddam, Iraq will still be an oil-endowed nation with large numbers of skilled scientists. Many Iraqis will still feel threatened by Israel and Iran, and may feel that their country needs weapons of mass destruction. Said one exiled Iraqi scientist, “I felt that as an Arab, it was right that an Arab country have the bomb. Israel has one. So should we.” [7]
Even if Iraq should somehow turn out democratic, it may still opt to pursue weapons of mass destruction, as many democratic nations have.
American troops cannot remain in the country for long enough to prevent this. The longer American troops remain, the greater the danger of a Chechnya-style guerrilla war, and the more damage to American interests in the Arab world and beyond. “I am viscerally opposed to the prolonged occupation of a Muslim country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who proclaim the right to re-educate that country,” former secretary of state Henry Kissinger said in 2002. [8]
4. The inspections can be effective.
The UN inspectors now have unprecedented access to Iraq. They can look in any building, closet, or filing cabinet in the country. They can set up electronic monitoring equipment, send spy planes to observe sites, and swoop in by helicopter. If they want to look for mobile labs, they can set up roadblocks and search trucks.
For a tiny fraction of what war will cost, the monitoring mission could be vastly expanded, with the resources to swarm over the country. Monitoring could be made permanent, until the international community decides otherwise.
Monitoring cannot preclude all attempts at cheating, but neither can an American invasion. An inspection program may be able to deter Iraqi violations, and it would in any case keep any programs small and on the run, as the risk of discovery would be great.
5. Iraq can be contained.
Even without inspections, Iraq can be contained. This is the judgement of many conservative and centrist foreign policy experts and ex-military officers, including Brent Scowcroft and Generals Schwarzkopf and Zinni. [9] Military and intelligence officials, the professionals charged with protecting this country, have been skeptics of an invasion. “Many senior military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade,” the Washington Post reported in 2002. [10]
There is no plausible scenario for Iraq “dominating the region,” even if it had nuclear weapons. If Iraqi troops set foot outside their country, Saddam’s regime would be destroyed.
Iraq had chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War in 1991, but was deterred from using them by the threat of massive retaliation, as U.S. intelligence confirmed after the war. [11] Such deterrence can continue.
6. The Bush administration has no plausible long-term plan.
Even if many Iraqis welcome American troops, they will soon resent American rule. The largest Iraqi opposition group has already said that it won’t accept an American puppet government in place of Saddam. [12] A New York Times columnist who talked to large numbers of Iraqis wrote, “While I found few people willing to fight for Saddam, I encountered plenty of nationalists willing to defend Iraq against Yankee invaders.” [13]
It is worth noting that the United States has already liberated a nation from Hussein–Kuwait–and Kuwaitis don’t seem very grateful. Polling in 2002 found that only about a quarter of Kuwaitis have a favorable view of the United States. A larger percentage, 36%, thought the September 11th attacks on the United States were morally justified. [14] Will Iraqis be friendlier?
According to James Webb, Reagan’s secretary of the Navy, “Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay.” [15]
7. An invasion will damage our relationships with our allies and the world.
A majority of people in most of the world’s countries, including every one of our Western allies, are against an attack. This includes allies such as Britain, Australia, and Italy, whose leaders have supported Bush. Going through with an invasion will further damage our image virtually everywhere.
We need friends in the war on terror. Thousands of suspects have been rounded up in over 100 countries. Alienating the world will erode support in this fight.
The Bush administration’s obsession with Iraq has triggered the worst crisis in the NATO alliance’s 54-year history. Bush appears willing to turn against old and powerful friends to pursue what Colin Powell called a “fixation” on Iraq. [16]
8. The threat of war in Iraq is damaging the economy.
Millions are out of work, but the Bush administration has ignored the link between Iraq and the economy. Fears of war have driven stock prices down and oil prices up, taking billions of dollars out of the pockets of American consumers. In February 2003, Alan Greenspan told Congress that the possibility of war with Iraq is impeding economic recovery. [17]
The war could cost hundreds of billions, with billions more each year to pay for occupation. This is money that could go for American needs. American states are now in their worst financial crisis of the last 50 years, and Bush is choosing to spend the money on Iraq.
9. War is terrible.
It was sad to lose the seven Columbia astronauts. How many multiples of seven will we lose in Iraq? No one knows, but do we want 700 body bags coming home? Seven thousand?
It takes one bullet to end an American life. Saddam’s regime has given out hundreds of thousands of automatic rifles, and many Iraqi families have weapons at home. [18] Many Iraqis will want to use them on Americans. “I want to defend my country and teach the Americans a lesson,” an Iraqi in Jordan told an American reporter. [19]
Thousands of innocent Iraqis will die as well. Because we will have chosen this war, their deaths will be held against us in world opinion. Many Muslims will feel we have no right to object to terrorists killing innocents when we choose to do so ourselves.
10. We are better than that.
In 1963, President Kennedy said, “The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war.” It will be tragic if Bush makes him a liar. We are the most powerful country on the planet. Iraq is tiny and impoverished. We don’t have to act like a frightened bully. We can choose instead to be true to what we are.
Notes:
[1] Michael Dobbs, “Concern Grows Over U.S. Need for Allies,” Washington Post, January 27, 2003, A13.
[2] David Ignatius, “Doubt in the Ranks,” Washington Post, November 1, 2002, A35.
[3] “Osama bin Laden Urges Attacks on the U.S.,” Washington Post, February 12, 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58869-2003Feb11.html
[4] David Johnston, “Senior U.S. Officials Tell Lawmakers of Iraq-Qaeda Ties,” New York Times, February 12, 2003
[5] Alison Mitchell and Carl Hulse, “C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror,” New York Times, October 9, 2002.
[6] David Von Drehle, “Debate Over Iraq Focuses on Outcome,” Washington Post, October 7, 2002, A4.
[7] Daniel Williams, “Ex-Iraq Worker Tells of Fooling the Inspectors,” Washington Post, December 17, 2002, A22.
[8] David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Has a Plan to Occupy Iraq,” New York Times, October 11, 2002.
[9] David Von Drehle, “Debate Over Iraq Focuses on Outcome,” Washington Post, October 7, 2002, A4; Thomas E. Ricks, “Desert Caution,” Washington Post, January 28, 2003.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52450-2003Jan27.html
[10] Thomas E. Ricks, “Some Top Military Brass Favor Status Quo in Iraq,” Washington Post, July 28, 2002, A1.
[11] Walter Pincus, “U.S. Plans Appeal To Iraqi Officers,” Washington Post, September 18, 2002, A11.
[12] Associated Press, “Group Welcomes Aid to Depose Hussein,” Washington Post, October 22, 2002, A24.
[13] Nicholas D. Kristof, “The Stones of Baghdad,” New York Times, October 4, 2002.
[14] Andrea Stone, “Many in Islamic World Doubt Arabs Behind 9/11,” USA Today, February 27, 2002.
[15] James Webb, “Heading for Trouble,” Washington Post, September 4, 2002, A21.
[16] Powell’s “fixation” remark: Glenn Kessler, “U.S. Decision on Iraq Has Puzzling Past,” Washington Post, January 12, 2003, A20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer
[17] John M. Berry and Jonathan Weisman, “Greenspan Says Tax Cuts Are Premature,” Washington Post, February 12, 2003, A10.
[18] Vivienne Walt, “In Baghdad, Residents Prepare for New Travails as Battle Looms,” USA Today, October 2, 2002; Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Iraq Arms Civilians As Second Line of Defense Against U.S.,” Washington Post, February 5, 2003, A19.
[19] Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Forsaking Life in Exile, Iraqis Line Up to Go Home,” Washington Post, November 18, 2002, A14.