issues.oz

It Begins

Saddam Hussein is a completely different political beast to Osama bin Laden.

Saddam is not motivated by the same things as Osama. Where Osama is driven by an intense hatred for America, borne out of his fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran, Saddam on the other hand is motivated purely by power. Saddam is interested purely in self preservation and power, Osama is interested purely in the destruction of America and Israel.

The above is something that needs to be recognised if the world is going to have a sensible debate about the question... What should we do with Iraq?
To be honest with you, this essay is not foccused on convicing the reader one way or another.... merely to examine some of the relevant issues. In this essay, ill look at the question of WMD's (weapons of mass distruction). In subsequent essays ill write about human rights in iraq, post-saddam iraq and the balance between the UN and the US. I'm sure you dont want to read about it all at once (sadly, if at all).

To examine the question thoroughly, lets before anything else, round up everything we know about Iraq.

We know that Iraq is ruled by a man that the west conciders to be an unpredictable despot. But is he really that unpredictable? We concider him to be, as a despot, unpredictable by definition. Yet we know his motivations so well. We know that he is motivated purely by the pursuit of tangible power, and once attained, he is concerned only with holding on to it. Given we know this, can't we also predict exactly the way he will behave? It sounds like disasterously negligent foreign policy to say it, but a dictator thats been in power for 22 years, offers nothing if not stability and predictability.

If Saddam Hussein ever dropped a nuclear weapon on America the retaliation would obliterate him. He knows that. Everyone knows that. He would no longer be President of Iraq if America dropped a nuclear bomb on him.... so he would never drop a bomb on America. It's simple cause and effect that even Mr Hussein can understand. His instinct for self preservation, not just of his power but of his very life, would not allow him to drop an unprovoked bomb on America. So that much should be clear. If Saddam had nuclear weapons today, it doesnt, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that he would drop a bomb in New York tommorow morning.

The other concern voiced by Bush, Blair et al.... is that Iraqi nuclear weapons will find their way into the hands of terrorists. This brings us to the second thing we know about Iraq. It is in fact, one of the few nations in the Middle East not living under an Islamic Monarchy. So much so that only just last year a law was passed in Iraq banning the formation of religious political parties (a rather empty law given that even legal political parties arent really allowed to do anything meaningful). Saddam himself, abhors religious fundamentalism. Not through any sense of moral piety on his part.... but because individuals like Osama bin Laden are a direct threat to his rule (see above: Saddam is predictable in his pursuit and maintenance of power). Saddam is of the Sunni sect of Muslims. Osama is of the Shi'ite sect of Islam. Think if you will, of the tension between these 2 sects being somewhat like the tension between Catholics and Protestants. Now think of Iraq as being like Northern Ireland. Now your getting some sort of an idea of the way things are between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Husein. They are sworn enemies. So much so... the Al Quaeda jihad, includes a jihad against sunni muslims, and their unique interpretation of islam. Osama hates Jews and Christians alot.... but right behind George W and Ariel Sharon in Laden's list'o'men he would like to fly planes into, are Saddam Hussein and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia (another Sunni muslim). What is the point of this? Well first of all, it lays to rest any notion or suggestion that Saddam Hussein might work with the likes of Al Quaeda some day in the future. Saddam is a dictator, not a terrorist. (Update: Turns out im wrong. Alarmed informs me, in the comments, that Osama is a Sunni muslim. However, as he points out, it makes little difference to my point... ie: that the radical islam of Osama is a threat and totally incompatible to the moderate islam, and secular goverment of Saddam. They hate each other)

Is their any chance that Iraqi nukes might fall into the hands of terrorists by accident rather then malicious intent? Sure. I suppose. But I would probably be much more concerned about Pakistani nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Terrorists are after all, much more active in Pakistan then they are in Iraq. Could Iraq be a breeding ground for terrorists? A place where they will train umolested for their next attack? Well its possible that terrorists could train in Iraq. But certainly not with the approval of the Government. Then again.... isnt that exactly what happened in America itself? The september 11 terrorists learnt to fly in florida, but im fairly sure that there was no talk of overthrowing the government of florida for being a terrorist breeding ground. The point is that there are MANY 3rd world nations around the world where terrorists could congregate and train, but we cant overthrow governments just because they are helpless to stop it. Believe me when i say, that if their are Al Quaeda cellsin Iraq, Saddam would be doing all he can to have them weeded out. For Tony Blair to come out and tell the world that there were September 11 terrorists trained in Iraq is fairly spurious.

The 3rd danger worth concidering is what would happen if Saddam had nuclear weapons, and America had to directly engage Iraq in another war. Suppose if Saddam decided to move into Kuwait again. Unlike the last 2 possiblities, the dangers here can't so easily be refused. It is true to say, that if America is ever again obligated to go into Iraq, there is a very real danger that Saddam could use nuclear or biological weapons, if not on American citizens, then atleast on American marines in the theatre of war. History attests to the fact that Saddam has little respect for his neighbors.Half of his time as Dictator, has been engaged in agression towards Iran, Israel, Kuwait, and the kurdish. He's only been quiet for the last 10 years, because nothing slows ones agression quite like the sting of defeat.He is, to say the least, avaricious in his pursuit of land and resources. Who's to say he won't try again? Certainly not I. And if he did decide again to push Iraqi borders outwards, and America was forced into another confrontation, THEN it wouldnt be such a sure thing to say that Saddam would keep his hypothetical nukes to himself.

HOWEVER.... when Saddam invaded Kuwait, he misjudged America, a mistake he would be unlikely to make again. For much of the 80's America and Saddam were good mates. America gave weapons to Saddam for use in his war with Iran (Shi'ites just fyi). Saddam presumed, perhaps with some sort of strange logic, that America would turn a blind eye to his invasion of Kuwait. I doubt he would so profoundly misunderstand the duplicity of American foreign policy in the future. Remember Saddam is concerned with self preservation. He knows it would be suicidal to attack Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. So i doubt it would ever happen. But i say that with hesitation. Here lies the only danger from Saddams hypothetical nukes... that he would use them the next time Iraq and America have a stoush about something.

I'll write more about this latter. For now i should sleep. Good night.