by Gordon S. Clark
Knight Ridder-Tribune
The hard-line hawks in the Bush administration are pushing for a "regime change" in Iraq and preparing for war. But the consequences of a U.S. attack on Iraq range from troubling to potentially catastrophic.
First, the unprovoked (or in the new strategic-speak, "preventive") attack on Iraq would increase the already substantial anger felt toward the United States by Muslim and Arab peoples. Such anger, continually stoked, would create fertile recruitment ground for terrorists.
Second, an all-out attack to oust Saddam Hussein might be precisely the motivation he needs to use weapons of mass destruction, if he has any. "Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses," retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 15.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Third, there is every reason to believe that Hussein will once again attack Israel, as he did during the Gulf War. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon seems in no mood to practice restraint, and if Israel responds, it could easily become a region-wide war.
Fourth, to keep Iraq together or to support our chosen replacement for Hussein, the United States would need to keep troops in Iraq - thousands of troops, for many years. This would create still more resentment among Arabs and Muslims, and more targets for terrorism.
Fifth, the anger on the Arab street could help foment the overthrow of other Middle-Eastern governments. Our allies in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are called "moderate" in the U.S. press, but in reality they are corrupt and repressive dictators. They have objected to U.S. plans largely because they know they could face popular uprising or assassination if they are seen as supporting them.
Sixth, an attack could have a profound negative effect on the economy, bringing an oil price shock, market disruptions and a huge bill for the United States. The $60 billion price tag of the Gulf War was largely picked up by allies, but they have no intention of doing that this time. An attack would also fundamentally disrupt the economies of Turkey and Jordan, which depend on trade with Iraq.
Seventh, such an unprovoked attack would undermine the international rule of law, and could encourage other nations to launch "pre-emptive" strikes against their enemies, leading to more war around the world.
Eighth, an attack would further degrade our image and working relationship with the other nations of the world. Apart from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, no other national leader supports our plans in Iraq, and most strongly oppose them.
Ninth, if you are concerned about morality or human lives, any large-scale action against Iraq would almost certainly kill thousands of innocent civilians. When she voted against military action after Sept. 11, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., cited the dean of the National Cathedral who prayed that "we not become the evil we deplore." How many Iraqi civilians are we ready to kill to remove Saddam Hussein?
Tenth, how many Americans are we ready to sacrifice? The number of casualties to American troops could be large, and the threat to homeland security is just as plausible. Are we prepared for retaliation?
Proponents of the war manage to sweep all of these concerns aside. But the public is not so gung-ho. Bush's war plans are a disaster in the making. It is up to us, the American people, to put on the brakes.
Gordon S. Clark was national executive director of Peace Action from 1996 until 2001. He can be reached at pmproj@progressive.org, or by writing to Progressive Media Project, 409 East Main St., Madison, Wis. 53703; Web site: www.progressive.org.
