Weapons Inspectors Need More Time
By George Perkovich
Editorial
Newsday
January 28, 2003
Disarming Iraq is important enough to fight for. But is war necessary now?
According to the Bush administration and the United Nations Security Council, the problem we are trying to solve is disarmament. For our own security and that of our friends, we rightly insist on knowing that Iraq does not possess biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
The initial report from Hans Blix and his UN-backed inspectors indicates that this disarmament process is neither succeeding nor failing at this point. It's too early to tell. But the physical threat from Iraq is contained. The powerful military force massing around Iraq and the inspectors beginning to probe wherever they wish have forced Saddam Hussein to lay low. He knows that if he moves to strike or to augment his arsenal, he would be whacked immediately, thanks to the determination of the president.
From a security standpoint, then, the force in the region makes war unnecessary right now. It provides time to let the agreed inspection process proceed. Nevertheless, elements in the Bush administration say they've seen enough. The inspections are a failure; it's time for war.
If you consider the facts, you see this is a rash leap to judgment and war. Inspectors only received their first bits of intelligence from the United States three weeks ago. The administration admits it's holding back the best information. The first helicopter - necessary for surprise inspections - only got into the air Jan. 5. Inspection teams are not at full strength. Inspectors have barely begun examining newly suspect sites. The high-value detective work of tracking suspicious imports is just starting. U2 planes and other vital overhead surveillance of Iraq has not begun.
To be sure, Iraq is not actively helping inspectors resolve questions stemming from its incomplete and misleading 12,000-page declaration. This is indeed a material breach of the key UN Resolution 1441. Yet, to conclude at this stage that inspections won't work is to believe that the whole process relies on Hussein's voluntarily leading the inspectors to his weapons stash. Who realistically thought he would help?
Iraq's failure to volunteer sufficient evidence that it has disarmed does entitle us to declare the inspections over and to start a war. But that does not mean that this would be wise to do now. Further inspections can confirm or disprove U.S. and other countries' admittedly scanty intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and uncover illicit technology procurement networks from around the world into Iraq - two things that inspectors have only just begun to do.
Focusing on inspections, not war, should increase the pressure on Iraq to allow scientists to talk unmonitored to the inspectors. UN chief weapons inspector Blix's report yesterday showed that inspectors are tough-minded, objective and perfectly prepared to say when and how Iraq is failing to prove that it has disarmed. With a bit more time, the case will be made persuasively either way and the decision to move to war will follow more naturally.
War always entails risks - accidents, mistakes, unintended consequences - that can make the costs in treasure and life soar like a nuclear-tipped missile. To wage a war when it is optional, not immediately necessary, we must be extremely confident that the costs - human and economic - will be low relative to the benefits. The United States, with its sense of responsibility and belief in law and teamwork, also should want the backing of the civilized community. This strengthens our legitimacy and shares our burdens.
Going to war now, without the international community, makes sense only if you believe that our forces will win easily and quickly - and that the Muslim world will rally behind us to remake Iraq and other Arab governments into tolerant pluralist states that dedicate themselves to rooting out the few remaining terrorists within their midsts. Make no mistake: If we invade Iraq now without UN Security Council backing, we, with Britain, will assume whole responsibility for its future - for a long time.
There is a bigger picture here: We need international partners not only to disarm Iraq, but also to deal with North Korea and the struggle against terrorism. If the people we need as partners see us as an arrogant bully for starting a war before it was necessary, they may conclude that we need to be knocked down a notch or be left to solve all these problems ourselves if we're so rich and strong.
Inspectors need more time and intelligence assistance to judge whether they will be able to confirm or disprove Iraq's disarmament. If, after that time - perhaps a year - Iraq's disarmament has not been established, the Security Council should pursue its ultimate enforcement option, war.
One way or another, President George W. Bush will go into history as the leader who oversaw the disarmament of Iraq. The accolades will be greatest if this can be done without war and with the cooperation of the international community.
___________________________________________
George Perkovich is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which just released "Iraq: What Next?"
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
newsday.com |
