Where Iraq Fits in the War on Terror
"Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many
respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam
Hussein to other, more urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not
the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being compromised,
a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address
again seems directly relevant to our lives."
The New York Times
September 13, 2002
By MADELEINE K. ALBRIGHT
WASHINGTON - The core of President Bush's forcefully delivered message on Iraq
at the United Nations yesterday was irrefutable. Saddam
Hussein is a serial liar, a bully and a threat to peace. He has used chemical weapons,
and he yearns to impress an Arab world that despises
him by building a deliverable nuclear bomb.
The president made a strong case for international action that results either
in Iraqi compliance with its obligations or the establishment of a new
and, ultimately, democratic government in Baghdad. There should be
bipartisan backing for such a policy here at home, and the president wisely
has chosen to solicit global support instead of attempting to go it alone.
I hope, however, that the president will not be pushed by his hard-line
advisers into an unwise timetable for military action. We should pick this
fight at a moment that best suits our interests. And right now, our primary
interest remains the thorough destruction and disruption of Al Qaeda
and related terrorist networks.
Earlier this week, the International Institute of Strategic Studies
released a summary of Iraq's military capabilities that foreshadowed the
president's words yesterday. Iraq likely has significant quantities of biological
warfare agents and some chemical munitions. It is striving to acquire
or develop nuclear weapons, but there is no evidence it has succeeded.
It may have a dozen missiles that could be used to threaten nearby states.
Saddam Hussein is the enemy we know. Since the administration
of former President George H.W. Bush, each time Mr. Hussein has pushed, we have pushed back.
Today, American and British planes enforce no-flight zones over 40 percent of his
country and a maritime force prevents weapons
from reaching Iraq by sea. Saddam Hussein's military is far weaker
than it was a decade ago. And he must surely be aware that if he ever again
tries to attack another country he will be obliterated. All that is grounds for calm,
but not complacency.
The president said he is willing to work with the Security Council. I hope
that will include an explicit call for United Nations weapons inspectors to
return to Iraq, although I doubt Iraq will accept them. By promoting that
option first, the administration would strengthen the diplomatic case for
subsequent action. As the president pointed out, during the past decade
Iraq has failed to comply with a host of Security Council directives. If
Baghdad persists in its defiance, the president has rightly placed
the burden on those who oppose the use of force to explain how else compliance
may be assured. One cannot insist on the council's central role in
promoting international security and law, then look the other way when the will
of the council is repeatedly defied.
Although the president's speech yesterday was persuasive in many
respects, he was neither specific nor compelling in his effort to link Saddam
Hussein to other, more urgent threats. As evil as Mr. Hussein is, he is not
the reason antiaircraft guns ring the capital, civil liberties are being compromised,
a Department of Homeland Defense is being created and the Gettysburg Address
again seems directly relevant to our lives.
In the aftermath of tragedy a year ago, the chief executive told our nation
that fighting terrorism would be "the focus of my presidency." That - not
Iraq - remains the right focus.
During the past four years, Al Qaeda has attacked Americans here at home,
in Africa and in the Middle East. We still do not know where its top
operatives are or what they might be planning. There is evidence that Qaeda
members are returning to Afghanistan, where thousands of Taliban
supporters still live and lawlessness prevails. We have not given the
government of Hamid Karzai even a fraction of the help it needs to make
Afghanistan a permanent terrorist-free zone. Creation of an effective
worldwide antiterror coalition remains a work in progress. Restructuring our
intelligence services, law enforcement agencies and military to defeat
the terrorist threat continues to be in the design stage.
Obviously, we cannot wait until terrorism is entirely eradicated to deal
with Saddam Hussein. But it makes little sense now to focus the world's
attention and our own military, intelligence, diplomatic and financial
resources on a plan to invade Iraq instead of on Al Qaeda's ongoing plans to
murder innocent people. We cannot fight a second monumental struggle
without detracting from the first one.
The administration should take the time necessary to broaden support
for its Iraq policy, respond to Congressional inquiries, strengthen Iraqi
opposition groups, fine-tune military planning, develop a coherent blueprint
for the post-Hussein era, identify the massive resources that will be required
to fund the war and its aftermath, and conduct diplomacy aimed at cooling
tensions in the Middle East.
If United Nations inspectors are again rebuffed by Iraq, we should also give
notice that we will destroy without warning any facilities in that country that
we suspect are being used to develop prohibited arms. Even if those suspicions
are later proved wrong, the blame should fall on Iraq for denying access, not on the United
States for trying to enforce the Security Council's will. In the same vein,
we should make it clear that anyone who assists Iraq's nuclear program
will be considered an enemy of the United States.
At the United Nations yesterday, the president began the job of spelling
out the what and why of our policy toward Baghdad. The wisdom of that
policy, however, will ultimately hinge on when he chooses to act.
Madeleine K. Albright was secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 and United States ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997.
nytimes.com Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company |
