Contain, Don't Attack Iraq

Discuss this on our boards!

Contain, Don't Attack Iraq
by James Hall, Associate Editor

August 7, 2002

"Leaning Left"

James Hall There's no doubt that George W. Bush would like to take care of his father's unfinished business in Iraq. But before we send thousands of American troops at Saddam Hussein, who possesses chemical, biological, and maybe even nuclear weapons, who isn't afraid to use them, and who knows that his removal from power is the goal, maybe we ought to consider the tried and true strategy of containment instead. Especially when all the ingredients for containment are already in place.

Saddam Hussein knows we're coming for him and has had lots of time to prepare unpleasant surprises for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. And it will be Americans risking their lives on Iraqi soil. It'll be Americans dying from gas attacks, or diseases, or mines, or even nuclear or dirty bombs the Iraqis may have put together since the UN inspectors left four years ago. If Saddam is going to go, you can be sure he will want to take a lot of American men and women with him.

And we'll wage this war alone, unlike Desert Storm, when George H. W. Bush had the support of 31 nations with Japanese and gulf oil money to pay for the work American troops did then. This time the American soldier will bear the brunt of the action and the American taxpayer will foot the bill for it all. And it won't be allied forces pushing Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait, either---it will be Iraqis defending their own soil.

But it doesn't have to be this way. We can employ a different strategy, one that has worked against tyrants far worse than Saddam and against nations far more dangerous than Iraq. We can put a barrier around Saddam, starve him of the money and materials he needs to build up his forces and carry out his plans, and wait for him to go belly-up.

Containment worked against a far more dangerous foe, the Soviet Union, and it is working on numerous small rogue nations today---including Cuba, Libya, and North Korea. We treat them as one treats a cancerous tumors---cut them off from the world body and starve them until they shrink into insignificance. Once powerful and revolutionary Cuba is an island backwater these days; Libya is trying desperately to make amends to get back into the world community, and North Korea's people are literally starving, forcing its leaders to negotiate with a prosperous South Korea.

All the pieces are already in place to contain Iraq, thanks to its decade-old invasion of Kuwait. Iraq remains under UN sanctions and the US and Britain are allowed to patrol much of its air space and take aggressive action against Iraq if necessary. We are already squeezing Saddam to a large extent and can squeeze him even further. The ring of nations that surround Iraq would be happy to participate in its continued isolation, but wary of supporting another US invasion because of the uncertainty of a post-Saddam Iraqi government.

Containing a dangerous state isn't nearly as satisfying as fighting an out and out war against one. One measures the progress of containment over years, slowly, not over a few months or years of active campaigning. Success is measured not by getting rid of a leader like a Saddam, a Castro, or a Stalin, but waiting him out. Containment has proven to be an effective strategy that can save the lives of America's soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We ought to consider it before we decide to go after a dangerous ruler who knows we're coming for him. ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files