[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 22 (Thursday, February 6, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E151-E152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    KEEPING SADDAM HUSSEIN IN A BOX

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 5, 2003

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of 
respect for the intellectual capacity of those making policy in the 
Bush administration--so much respect that I find it very hard to 
believe that they themselves really believe the rationales they have 
put forward for their two current major policy initiatives: a major tax 
cut, including an abolition of the tax on some dividends, and a war in 
Iraq.
  Specifically, I do not believe that the top economists in the Bush 
administration really think that enactment of his latest tax relief 
package will have any significant near term stimulus effect on our 
sputtering economy. Similarly, I do not think that the administration's 
foreign policy and defense experts really believe that Iraq is a 
significant threat to the United States. There are broader, 
philosophical, ideological and political reasons behind both proposals.
  In an extremely well argued, comprehensive essay published in the New 
York Times for February 2, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt very 
forcefully refute the argument that we must to war with Iraq because it 
is a threat to our security, and point our cogently what the negative 
effects of such a war will be on us.
  Because Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt do a very good job of making 
clear a case against going to war in Iraq, and because that is the 
single most important question now facing this country and this 
Congress, I ask that this essay be printed here.

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 2, 2003]

                    Keeping Saddam Hussein in a Box

              (By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt)

       The United States faces a clear choice on Iraq: containment 
     or preventive war. President Bush insists that containment 
     has failed and we must prepare for war. In fact, war is not 
     necessary. Containment has worked in the past and can work in 
     the future, even when dealing with Saddam Hussein.
       The case for preventive war rests on the claim that Mr. 
     Hussein is a reckless expansionist bent on dominating the 
     Middle East. Indeed, he is often compared to Adolf Hitler, 
     modern history's exemplar of serial aggression. The facts, 
     however, tell a different story.
       During the 30 years that Mr. Hussein has dominated Iraq, he 
     has initiated two wars. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, but only 
     after Iran's revolutionary government tried to assassinate 
     Iraqi officials, conducted repeated border raids and tried to 
     topple Mr. Hussein by fomenting unrest within Iraq. His 
     decision to attack was not reckless, because Iran was 
     isolated and widely seen as militarily weak. The war proved 
     costly, but it ended Iran's regional ambitions and kept Mr. 
     Hussein in power.
       Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 arose from a serious 
     dispute over oil prices and war debts and occurred only after 
     efforts to court Mr. Hussein led the first Bush 
     administration unwittingly to signal that Washington would 
     not oppose an attack. Containment did not fail the first time 
     around--it was never tired.
       Thus, Mr. Hussein has gone to war when he was threatened 
     and when he thought he had a window of opportunity. These 
     considerations do not justify Iraq's actions, but they 
     show that Mr. Hussein is hardly a reckless aggressor who 
     cannot be contained. In fact, Iraq has never gone to war 
     in the face of a clear deterrent threat.
       But what about the Iraqi regime's weapons of mass 
     destruction? Those who reject containment point to Iraq's 
     past use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran. They 
     also warn that he will eventually get nuclear weapons. 
     According to President Bush, a nuclear arsenal would enable 
     Mr. Hussein to ``blackmail the world.'' And the real 
     nightmare is that he will give chemical, biological or 
     nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda.
       These possibilities sound alarming, but the dangers they 
     pose do not justify war.
       Mr. Hussein's use of poison gas was despicable, but it 
     tells us nothing about what he might do against the United 
     States or its allies. He could use chemical weapons against 
     the Kurds and Iranians because they could

[[Page E152]]

     not retaliate in kind. The United States, by contrast, can 
     retaliate with overwhelming force, including weapons of mass 
     destruction. This is why Mr. Hussein did not use chemical or 
     biological weapons against American forces or Israel during 
     the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Nor has he used such weapons 
     since, even though the United States has bombed Iraq 
     repeatedly over the past decade.
       The same logic explains why Mr. Hussein cannot blackmail 
     us. Nuclear blackmail works only if the blackmailer's threat 
     might actually be carried out. But if the intended target can 
     retaliate in kind, carrying out the threat causes the 
     blackmailer's own destruction. This is why the Soviet Union, 
     which was far stronger than Iraq and led by men of equal 
     ruthlessness, never tried blackmailing the United States.
       Oddly enough, the Bush administration seems to understand 
     that America is not vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. For 
     example, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, has 
     written that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction ``will be 
     unusable because any attempt to use them will bring national 
     obliteration.'' Similarly, President Bush declared last week 
     in his State of the Union Address that the United States 
     ``would not be blackmailed'' by North Korea, which 
     administration officials believe has nuclear weapons. If 
     Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal is 
     ``unusable'' and North Korea's weapons cannot be used for 
     blackmail, why do the President and Ms. Rice favor war?
       But isn't the possibility that the Iraqi regime would give 
     weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda reason enough to 
     topple it? No--unless the administration isn't telling us 
     something. Advocates of preventive war have made Herculean 
     efforts to uncover evidence of active cooperation between 
     Iraq and Al Qaeda, and senior administration officials 
     have put great pressure on American intelligence agencies 
     to find convincing evidence. But these efforts have borne 
     little fruit, and we should view the latest reports of 
     alleged links with skepticism. No country should weave a 
     case for war with such slender threads.
       Given the deep antipathy between fundamentalists like Osama 
     bin Laden and secular rulers like Saddam Hussein, the lack of 
     evidence linking them is not surprising. But even if American 
     pressure brings these unlikely bedfellows together, Mr. 
     Hussein is not going to give Al Qaeda weapons of mass 
     destruction. He would have little to gain and everything to 
     lose since he could never be sure that American surveillance 
     would not detect the handoff. If it did, the United States 
     response would be swift and devastating.
       The Iraqi dictator might believe he could slip Al Qaeda 
     dangerous weapons covertly, but he would still have to worry 
     that we would destroy him if we merely suspected that he had 
     aided an attack on the United States. He need not be certain 
     we would retaliate, he merely has to think that we might.
       Thus, logic and evidence suggest that Iraq can be 
     contained, even if it possesses weapons of mass destruction. 
     Moreover, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions--the ones that 
     concern us most--are unlikely to be realized in his lifetime, 
     especially with inspections under way. Iraq has pursued 
     nuclear weapons since the 1970's, but it has never produced a 
     bomb, United Nations inspectors destroyed Iraq's nuclear 
     program between 1991 and 1998, and Iraq has not rebuilt it. 
     With an embargo in place and inspectors at work, Iraq is 
     further from a nuclear capacity than at any time in recent 
     memory. Again, why the rush to war?
       War may not be necessary to deny Iraq nuclear weapons, but 
     it is likely to spur proliferation elsewhere. The Bush 
     administration's contrasting approaches to Iraq and North 
     Korea send a clear signal: we negotiate with states that have 
     nuclear weapons, but we threaten states that don't. Iran and 
     North Korea will be even more committed to having a nuclear 
     deterrent after watching the American military conquer Iraq. 
     Countries like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia will then 
     think about following suit. Stopping the spread of nuclear 
     weapons will be difficult in any case, but overthrowing Mr. 
     Hussein would make it harder.
       Preventive war entails other costs as well. In addition to 
     the lives lost, toppling Saddam Hussein would cost at least 
     $50 billion to $100 billion, at a time when our economy is 
     sluggish and huge budget deficits are predicted for years. 
     Because the United States would have to occupy Iraq for 
     years, the actual cost of this war would most likely be much 
     larger. And because most of the world thinks war is a 
     mistake, we would get little help from other countries.
       Finally, attacking Iraq would undermine the war on 
     terrorism, diverting manpower, money and attention from the 
     fight against Al Qaeda. Every dollar spent occupying Iraq is 
     a dollar not spent dismantling terrorist networks abroad or 
     improving security at home. Invasion and occupation would 
     increase anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and help Osama 
     bin Laden win more followers. Preventive war would also 
     reinforce the growing perception that the United States is a 
     bully, thereby jeopardizing the international unity necessary 
     to defeat global terrorism.
       Although the Bush administration maintains that war is 
     necessary, there is a better option. Today, Iraq is weakened, 
     its pursuit of nuclear weapons has been frustrated, and any 
     regional ambitions it may once have cherished have been 
     thwarted. We should perpetuate this state of affairs by 
     maintaining vigilant containment, a policy the rest of the 
     world regards as preferable and effective. Saddam Hussein 
     needs to remain in his box--but we don't need a war to keep 
     him there.

                          ____________________