HOD
2004-01-08 15:29:54 UTC
Pierre M. Atlas
Rogue nations get the idea even if Dean doesn't
January 8, 2004
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean continues to insist that "the
capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Is he right?
Two recent developments offer conflicting answers. The heightened terror
alert during the Christmas and New Year's holidays and the grounding of
various international flights to the United States suggest that the answer
is no, we are not safer. But Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi's decision to
abandon his country's weapons of mass destruction programs suggests that
perhaps we are.
A majority of Americans believe Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, and the Iraq campaign was sold as a crucial part of the
"war on terror." But there has never been any hard evidence of a link
between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida attack on the U.S. Anyone occupying
the White House on Sept. 12, 2001, would have sent forces into Afghanistan
to go after Osama bin Laden and his followers. But it is hard to imagine any
president other than George W. Bush choosing Iraq as America's next target.
From a counterterrorism perspective, Operation Iraqi Freedom may be no more
than a distraction. Bin Laden is still on the loose, Iraq has become a
rallying cry for radical Islamists worldwide, and it is believed that last
month's bombings in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the assassination
attempts on Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, were the work of al-Qaida.
The recent Orange Alert and the refusal to admit several Air France and
British Airways flights into the U.S. indicate that the terrorist threats to
America or its allies have not been reduced. But because Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11 or bin Laden, this should really come as no surprise.
Neither the Iraq war nor Saddam Hussein's capture has made us safer from
terrorist attack. But this is not the entire answer to the question.
The other recent development, more stunning and of greater historical
import, was Qaddafi's announcement on Dec. 19 that he would disclose and
dismantle all his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and open
up his country to American inspectors. This followed nine months of
top-secret negotiations with U.S. and British intelligence. The move was
welcomed by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the
first step in the rehabilitation of this longstanding "rogue" state. If the
agreement is carried through to conclusion, the region, the world, and the
U.S. will all be safer for it.
Would Qaddafi have made this dramatic unilateral move had not the U.S.
invaded Iraq, overthrown its regime and captured Hussein? Not likely.
The original justification for the war, long since downplayed by its
proponents, was that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent
threat. Whatever happened to those weapons remains the $64,000 question.
But it is now clear that the war has had a broader impact: Other American
adversaries have been put on notice that, when it comes to the proliferation
of WMDs, it will no longer be business as usual.
States and leaders wishing to avoid becoming the next American target have
two choices in this new environment. They can try to acquire WMDs as quickly
as possible to deter U.S. military action. After all, we didn't attack North
Korea, a far greater regional threat than Iraq, in part because it already
had nukes. The second option is to openly divest themselves of WMDs and
perhaps get in America's good graces in the process. Libya has chosen this
second option. North Korea may now also be moving in this direction. It
remains to be seen which choice Iran will make.
States hostile to the U.S. that possess weapons of mass destruction and the
means to deliver them are a graver threat to their regions -- and to us --
than are terrorist groups. The threat of Islamist terrorism against the U.S.
has not been reduced by war in Iraq, and in fact may actually have been
increased. But the Iraq paradigm may inspire some of our longstanding foes
to change their behavior in a positive direction.
This, combined with the fact that the Iraqi people are better off free of
Hussein and his barbaric regime, suggests a conclusion different from
Dean's. The entire world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured.
Atlas is assistant professor of political science at Marian College.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/109431-5523-021.html
begin 666 clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! 4`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end
Rogue nations get the idea even if Dean doesn't
January 8, 2004
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean continues to insist that "the
capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Is he right?
Two recent developments offer conflicting answers. The heightened terror
alert during the Christmas and New Year's holidays and the grounding of
various international flights to the United States suggest that the answer
is no, we are not safer. But Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi's decision to
abandon his country's weapons of mass destruction programs suggests that
perhaps we are.
A majority of Americans believe Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks
of Sept. 11, 2001, and the Iraq campaign was sold as a crucial part of the
"war on terror." But there has never been any hard evidence of a link
between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaida attack on the U.S. Anyone occupying
the White House on Sept. 12, 2001, would have sent forces into Afghanistan
to go after Osama bin Laden and his followers. But it is hard to imagine any
president other than George W. Bush choosing Iraq as America's next target.
From a counterterrorism perspective, Operation Iraqi Freedom may be no more
than a distraction. Bin Laden is still on the loose, Iraq has become a
rallying cry for radical Islamists worldwide, and it is believed that last
month's bombings in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and perhaps the assassination
attempts on Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, were the work of al-Qaida.
The recent Orange Alert and the refusal to admit several Air France and
British Airways flights into the U.S. indicate that the terrorist threats to
America or its allies have not been reduced. But because Iraq had nothing to
do with 9/11 or bin Laden, this should really come as no surprise.
Neither the Iraq war nor Saddam Hussein's capture has made us safer from
terrorist attack. But this is not the entire answer to the question.
The other recent development, more stunning and of greater historical
import, was Qaddafi's announcement on Dec. 19 that he would disclose and
dismantle all his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs and open
up his country to American inspectors. This followed nine months of
top-secret negotiations with U.S. and British intelligence. The move was
welcomed by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the
first step in the rehabilitation of this longstanding "rogue" state. If the
agreement is carried through to conclusion, the region, the world, and the
U.S. will all be safer for it.
Would Qaddafi have made this dramatic unilateral move had not the U.S.
invaded Iraq, overthrown its regime and captured Hussein? Not likely.
The original justification for the war, long since downplayed by its
proponents, was that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent
threat. Whatever happened to those weapons remains the $64,000 question.
But it is now clear that the war has had a broader impact: Other American
adversaries have been put on notice that, when it comes to the proliferation
of WMDs, it will no longer be business as usual.
States and leaders wishing to avoid becoming the next American target have
two choices in this new environment. They can try to acquire WMDs as quickly
as possible to deter U.S. military action. After all, we didn't attack North
Korea, a far greater regional threat than Iraq, in part because it already
had nukes. The second option is to openly divest themselves of WMDs and
perhaps get in America's good graces in the process. Libya has chosen this
second option. North Korea may now also be moving in this direction. It
remains to be seen which choice Iran will make.
States hostile to the U.S. that possess weapons of mass destruction and the
means to deliver them are a graver threat to their regions -- and to us --
than are terrorist groups. The threat of Islamist terrorism against the U.S.
has not been reduced by war in Iraq, and in fact may actually have been
increased. But the Iraq paradigm may inspire some of our longstanding foes
to change their behavior in a positive direction.
This, combined with the fact that the Iraqi people are better off free of
Hussein and his barbaric regime, suggests a conclusion different from
Dean's. The entire world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been captured.
Atlas is assistant professor of political science at Marian College.
http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/109431-5523-021.html
begin 666 clear.gif
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! 4`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
`
end