By Eric E. Clingan
Arizona Daily Wildcat
December 3, 1997

The Case for Bombing Iraq

Arizona Daily Wildcat Eric E. Clingan

Remember Mu'ammar Qadhaffi? There's a very good chance that you don't, and that is the best argument for a military strike against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Qadhaffi, the leader of Libya, was found to be responsible for coordinating the 1986 bombing of a disco in West Germany, which resulted in the death of a U.S. serviceman. Only nine days after this Libya-sponsored terrorist act, the U.S. launched a fury of air attacks against Libyan government headquarters, military assets and terrorist facilities. President Ronald Reagan announced to the nation, "We believe that this preemptive strike against (Qadhaffi) ... will not only diminish (his) capacity to export terror, it will provide him with incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior." Again, remember Mu'ammar Qadhaffi?

Meet the '90s counterpart to that scourge: Saddam Hussein. Six years after his resounding defeat, this cockroach of a dictator is still scurrying about the dark shadows in his corner of the world.

As a result of losing the Persian Gulf War, Hussein was required to allow United Nations weapons inspectors (UNSCOM) unfettered access to any area of his country suspected of harboring military, chemical or biological weaponry. However, his persistent stonewalling over the past six years, in an effort to circumvent this requirement, conclusively demonstrates that Iraq will never cede to the will of the world. Like Libya, Iraq needs an incentive. However, Hussein's steadfast determination to maintain his weapons of mass terror is not reason enough for a military strike. The weapons themselves are.

One such weapon is anthrax. According to a background briefing of the press by unnamed Department of Defense officials on Nov. 14, anthrax is, "The leading, most deadly ... biological agent," in Hussein's possession. How deadly? A quantity of anthrax smaller than, "a speck of dust," when inhaled, is capable of killing countless victims within one to three days. Imagine Israel annihilated over a weekend. Significantly, "more than 2,200 gallons of anthrax remain untracked," by UN officials, according to a Nov. 23 report in The New York Times. The evidence is incontrovertible. Like a giant rat, Saddam Hussein still possesses the capability of unleashing the deadliest reign of biological terror on the world since the devastating bubonic plague of the middle ages. For this reason, arms proliferation expert Gary Milhollin recently told CNN, "You have to look at the Iraqis as a big weapon of mass destruction."

Whether the inspectors themselves have had any effect on Iraqi production of deadly anthrax spores and other weapons of terror, has always been in question. Back on June 12, UNSCOM attempted to carry out a surprise inspection of a site they had been tipped off as having germ agents and records of their transfer. Upon arrival, the team was stalled by Iraqi soldiers while they witnessed "items being passed over a wall," and, ostensibly, out of their sight forever. The items resembled coolers necessary for the storage of the germs UNSCOM was searching for. With the results of future inspections clearly in doubt due to such duplicitous conduct, this ridiculous shell game with Hussein should be ended.

The only effective response to this predicament is a surgical air strike against Iraq, designed to destroy those compounds we know to have chemical-producing capabilities. Such an organized, brief campaign of precision bombing would have the effect of destroying a significant portion of Hussein's arsenal of anthrax. Simultaneously, the U.S. would be serving notice to Iraq and the world that, when it comes to the rogue production of biological weapons, the time for gamesmanship is over.

This suggestion is apt to attract genuine concern that such bombing may ultimately lead to the dispersal of anthrax throughout Iraq. However, Defense officials have stipulated, "There is no indication that a broad dispersal of agent would occur from a kinetic energy (sic) by a bomb." It's of importance to consider that anthrax's deadliness is inherent in the mode of its dispersal. In its dried state, necessary to its storage, it is incapable of harm and most vulnerable to attack.

Another concern surrounds the ability to accurately target sites for military strikes. Responding to this on Nov. 21, George Robertson, Great Britain's Minister of Defense told The Washington Post, "What the inspectors already have learned might make air strikes more effective than were the 88,000 tons of ordinance delivered during the 43 days of Desert Storm."

Some even worry that the Middle East may react unfavorably toward the U.S., should it attack one of its Arab brothers. Here, it helps to keep in mind that the Middle East has always held disdain for the U.S. In 1991, the Arab world suspended that animosity out of a selfish concern that Hussein's takeover of Kuwait would have allowed him a crippling monopoly over the supply of oil in the region. With Hussein now effectively out of the oil business and avowing his only enemies as Israel and the U.S., is it surprising that Syria, Jordan, and yes, even Kuwait, have adopted a convenient wait-and-see attitude toward Iraq's growing potential for mass destruction?

In the words of President Reagan, Saddam Hussein needs to be provided with, "Incentives and reasons to alter his behavior." An escalation of economic sanctions is no longer feasible in the face of such potential terror. The time has come for military intervention simply because, as CNN reported on Nov. 24, "Among the fears (of American officials) are that Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in one or two years; or deploy chemical and biological weapons within weeks." American officials expressed these same fears regarding Mu'ammar Qadhaffi's Libya almost eleven years ago. Who?

Eric E. Clingan is a senior majoring in political science.