Time for action

The central issue in United States policy toward Iraq is the threat of weapons of mass destruction and what the international community should do to defuse that threat. The Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, has spent almost two decades acquiring these inherently offensive weapons and their delivery systems. "The greatest threat to life on earth is weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, biological," writes Richard Butler, former chairman of the United Nations Special Commission, which was charged with inspecting Iraq regularly for weapons violations. In his 2000 book, "The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security," Butler argues the U.N. must act to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. \nThe Bush administration announced Sunday it wants new leadership for Iraq, a position his father, President George H.W. Bush, fell short of achieving during the Gulf War. Many argued then that to remove Hussein after the war would have meant total disaster, caused by the power vacuum his absence would have created. Various clans and factions within and surrounding Iraq would certainly vie for control as soon as Hussein's repressive regime were defeated.\nBush said if Hussein continues to deny international weapons inspectors access, options for removing him include military action.\n"The United States reserves its option to do whatever it believes might be appropriate to see if there can be a regime change," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "U.S. policy is that, regardless of what the inspectors do, the people of Iraq and the people of the region would be better off with a different regime in Baghdad."\nUnited Nations Resolutions 687 and 1154 require Iraq to eliminate its "weapons of mass destruction while also accounting for Kuwaiti citizens kidnapped or killed by Iraqi forces." The Clinton administration pledged to end economic sanctions against Iraq if it met the conditions of the UN resolutions. But then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright said the U.S. would not lift sanctions while Hussein was still in power. That now seems to be the Bush team's stance. \nBush could call for a costly ground invasion of Iraq -- with potentially heavy loss of life among U.S. soldiers or rely primarily on bombing. Modern air power certainly comes closest to fulfilling the goal of achieving policy and military objectives with the fewest civilian and military casualties. If military force is required, then air power is preferable to the use of ground forces -- although even they may be necessary to complete the task (e.g., Operation Desert Storm).\nBefore any bombing or invasion to remove Hussein, the Bush foreign policy team must be certain that a replacement government -- or series of regional governments -- is available to fill the void left by Hussein's departure. The US government has consistently aided Iraqi opposition groups in their bids to overthrow Hussein, allowing the people of Iraq to work from within themselves, without direct U.S. intervention. Simply removing Hussein will destabilize the Middle East at a delicate time. Obviously economic sanctions and U.S. financial support to opposition groups in Iraq have not crippled Hussein in the least. But sanctions seem to have crippled the common Iraqi people. \nHussein continues to be a strong threat to the United States. Perhaps it's time for more decisive military action against Iraq, as Bush suggests may happen.