An American strike on Iraq is probable, according to political science professors Marc Simon and Neal Jesse. Jesse supports an attack, but Simon anticipates it would cause more problems than it would solve.
If America attacks Iraq without having been hit first, the United States is breaking policies it claims to support, according to Simon, associate professor and chair of the political science department.
“It’s a flagrant violation of international law,” he said. The government is calling the attack a ‘pre-emptive strike’ – an attack to prevent future attacks. But that label implies that an attack is already on the way when we can’t be sure, according to Simon.
“Any country could do that,” he said. “South Korea could do a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, and China could attack Taiwan.”
And for the world’s only super power to make such a move could encourage other countries to do the same, he added.
“It could lead to a more unstable world,” he said.
Jesse, however, sees things differently.
If the conflict would end quickly, it would be worth the effort, according to Jesse, assistant professor in the department.
“Maybe there’ll be sour relations with Arab nations in the short term,” Jesse said. “But from a military standpoint, I don’t think our losses will be that great.”
Backing down at this point could also have a harsh political downside, he said: After making so many threats, President Bush and his administration could lose credibility by not following through.
“Bush has rattled the saber so much that backing off now would send a mixed signal,” Jesse said. “You don’t want to back off after making threats.”
There is currently no hard evidence showing that Iraq has the weapons to make their own threats. But President Bush and his administration believe Saddam Hussein is building an arsenal because he has denied weapons inspectors from the United Nations since 1998.
Given that Iraq banned inspectors over three years ago, both professors find it odd that the administration is considering an attack now.
don’t see a risk now that didn’t exist five to ten years ago,” Simon said.
Both suggested that last year’s terrorist attacks provided enough support for the military to launch an attack on Iraq.
Jesse cited some Gallop Polls showing the country’s desire to fight after Sept. 11: A few weeks after the attacks, 70 percent of the country was in favor of a strike on Iraq. A newer poll put that number at about 50 percent, according to Jesse.
“It’s starting to wane a bit,” he added.
But waning support is still support. And leaders are trying to capitalize on it, according to Simon.
“Leaders are taking advantage of support for the military and the fear of terrorism,” he said. “During Bush’s first year in office, this wouldn’t have happened.”
Getting Iraq to drop the ban on inspectors could solve the problem. But according to Simon, the United States needs to try harder.
Getting a large group of countries to back the cause could make it happen, Simon said. “We need to work more with the UN,” he added.
Jesse agreed that getting weapons inspectors back in Iraq would give the best results.
“Colin Powell said the first step is to send in more inspectors,” he said. “That would still show America’s resolve and that we won’t attack just for the sake of attacking.”
But, should alternatives fail and an attack proceed, trying to rebuild Iraq’s government would be a mistake, the professors said.
“Let’s get rid of (Hussein) and let Iraq decide how to replace him,” Jesse added. “To do much else would tax us too greatly.”
“It would be messy,” Simon said. “They don’t like Saddam, but they don’t like us either.”
But even if Iraq gets a new government, it may not be a good government. Simon said there’s no guarantee that someone new would be any better than Hussein.
But there’s no chance of getting a better leader without ousting this one, according to Jesse.
“We must take the chance that a new leader won’t be as aggressive,” he said.
