[mobglob-discuss] Haaretz: Waging war on Iraq is not justified - By Aharon Levran

[Macdonald Stainsby]

  Tuesday, September 24, 2002 Tishrei 18, 5763 Israel Time:  12:56  (GMT+3)  
   
   
      Last update - 01:50 24/09/2002 
   
   
  Waging war on Iraq is not justified 
   
  By Aharon Levran 
   
 [This was sent from the holiday address 
 of the Gush Shalom email team. Please send 
 address changes and/or (un)subscribe requests 
 to info at gush-shalom.org]
   
   
   
 What are we fighting for? That is a crucial question when going off to a war
 - and certainly before initiating one. The Bush administration has no solid
 grounds for waging war on Saddam Hussein and the arguments about the variety
 of risks Saddam poses are exaggerated. 
 
 The interpretation of the threat Saddam poses, and the way it is being
 presented are deficient, because the U.S. administration is attributing the
 same megalomaniac ideas and ambitions to the Iraqi leader as he had before
 the Gulf War. 
 
 Despite his bombastic lying declarations, Saddam is well aware he was
 defeated. It is clear to him that he cannot take on the might of America,
 and it is no accident that he he has folded now on the issue of the nuclear
 weapons inspectors. Before the war he had built up hopes of gaining hegemony
 in the Gulf vis-a-vis Iran and his Arab "sisters," and he was ready even to
 challenge the United States. This does not seem to be the situation now. His
 ambitions since the war are curtailed. His limited aims are to protect Iraq
 and deter others from harming it and - of course - to survive. 
 
 Specifically he is striving to remove the burdensome economic sanctions and
 the humiliating inspection regime. It is doubtful if he has concrete desires
 to expand in the region or beyond it, if only because it is clear to him
 what its immediate cost would be. However, to achieve his limited purposes he
 needs power to back them, especially its non-conventional components, for 
they
 are the only things which give his power an added value. A brutal and crafty
 despot, Saddam has proved to be careful and sane in his moves. He might wish
 to return to his megalomaniac desires, but his capability is restricted. 
  
 Iraq today has no nuclear power, mainly because it has no fissile material
 like plutonium or enriched uranium, although it has a general potential to
 manufacture an atomic bomb. Before the war Iraq was, indeed, about six
 months away from manufacturing a bomb, but this is because it had the use of
 the fissile material in the reactors transferred to it by the Soviet Union 
and
 France and which were "under the inspection" of the International Atomic
 Energy Agency. 
 
 This material was taken away from Iraq, and today it does not have the
 capability to enrich uranium with centrifuges (which have been destroyed) or
 in other ways. Attempts to buy fissile material in the quality and quantity
 required for a bomb have failed in the past and it is doubtful whether the
 could succeed in the future. 
 
 It is also doubtful that post-war Saddam is striving wholeheartedly to build
 a nuclear bomb, because the moment he approaches it, this will not go
 unnoticed in United States and he would be sentencing himself to an immediate
 liquidation attempt. This would also be the case if he transferred nuclear
 arms of any kind to terrorists. 
  
 On the other hand, Saddam probably has chemical and biological weapons which
 are easy to manufacture and conceal. But even when he used chemical weapons
 in the Iraq-Iran war, he restricted himself, and even when his army was
 defeated and driven out of Kuwait, he did not dare to use those weapons. 
  
 The risks of non conventional weapons depend on having the means to launch
 them - mainly airplanes, pilotless drones and missiles. And here the Iraqi 
Air
 Force, even before the war in 1991, did not demonstrate any considerable
 attacking power - never mind after the war when it was very much weakened.
 However, even a single plane can carry out an infiltration and attack. Iraq
 has had drones for years, intended among other things to spray chemical and
 biological agents from the air. But their range and the abilities of the
 control systems are unclear - controlling drones across hundreds of
 kilometers or a thousand kilometers is not an easy matter to be taken for
 granted. 
 
 The ballistic missile issue also has two sides - there is no evidence that
 Iraq, (even since getting rid of the inspectors in December 1998) has many
 launchers and missiles, especially in the middle range. Their operational
 condition, and that of the war heads - especially the presumably hidden
 non-conventional heads - is not at all clear. Judging by the condition of
 chemical weapons the inspectors found in the past, such doubts are well
 placed. There is also the question of whether they could be operated freely
 in western Iraq as they were in 1991 to hit Israel and Saudi Arabia. 
 
 It seems one may establish that the risks from Saddam Hussein are not so bad
 as they are made to appear. Moreover, certain threats - and much more acute
 ones - are presented by others in the region, like Iran and Hezbollah. But
 these are not high on the U.S. list of priorities. 
 
 It is not desirable that the United States, so important to the free world,
 should pitch its power against a danger that is not first rate. 
 
 Brigadier General (res.) Levran is the author of "Israeli Strategy after
 Desert Storm," published by Frank Cass.