Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his
ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to
remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come ought to
depend on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our pre-eminent
security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the
war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously
jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have
undertaken.
The United States could certainly defeat the Iraqi military and destroy
Saddam's regime. But it would not be a cakewalk. On the contrary, it
undoubtedly would be very expensive -- with serious consequences for the
U.S. and global economy -- and could as well be bloody. In fact, Saddam
would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to
unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when
Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using
weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to
respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the
Middle East. Finally, if we are to achieve our strategic objectives in
Iraq, a military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a
large-scale, long-term military occupation.
But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the
strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite
period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in
the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that
sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual
go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations
correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost,
however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment
would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with
us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war
without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.
Possibly the most dire consequences would be the effect in the region.
The shared view in the region is that Iraq is principally an obsession
of the U.S. The obsession of the region, however, is the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we were seen to be turning our backs on
that bitter conflict -- which the region, rightly or wrongly, perceives
to be clearly within our power to resolve -- in order to go after Iraq,
there would be an explosion of outrage against us. We would be seen as
ignoring a key interest of the Muslim world in order to satisfy what is
seen to be a narrow American interest.