CONGRESSMAN DUNCAN HUNTER

Fall 2002

When Israel bombed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor in 1981, Israel was condemned by the world community, including the United Nations (UN) Security Council.  Despite this public hostility, Israel did what it felt was in its national security interests and many breathed a sigh of relief behind closed doors.  Ten years later, this attack proved to be fortuitous when we discovered, after the Gulf War, that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was only six to twelve months from obtaining nuclear capability.  What would have happened had Israel ignored Iraq's threat and had Saddam Hussein gained this technology before invading Kuwait?  Today, with the world watching, the United States finds itself in a similar situation.

Congress is currently debating whether ousting Saddam Hussein is warranted.  The question, however, is not what new evidence do we have that Saddam Hussein is seeking weapons of mass destruction; the question is, what are we going to do with the evidence we already have?

We know Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted.  We know that he has killed his own people with chemical weapons.  We know that Iraq is moving forward with a strong, well-financed weapons of mass destruction program.  Hussein has technology for nuclear weapons development, equipment for chemical and biological agents, Scud launchers and missile development systems with targeting and guidance technology.  We know that Iraq is currently in violation of 16 different UN Security Council resolutions.  We know that within days of announcing that he would allow inspections to resume, Saddam Hussein has already begun to backtrack.

Before UN inspectors left in 1998, evidence existed that Iraq had the capability of utilizing biological agents such as anthrax and smallpox within weeks or months.  Taking into consideration that this was four years ago, we must now assume that this capability is immediate.  Intelligence agencies believe that Iraq is not only in possession of nerve agents like sarin and tabun, but has numerous ballistic missile warheads that could certainly be used for their release.

Iraq also has both the expertise and most materials needed for building a nuclear weapon, including the bomb design, uranium, gas centrifuges and gaseous diffusion.  The only material apparently lacking is fissile material, which is the highly enriched uranium and plutonium necessary for nuclear capability.  Iraq could be anywhere from three to six years from obtaining this material, but with UN inspections in Iraq non-existent for four years, there is no way to be sure.  Paraphrasing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he testified before the House Armed Services Committee, "When you find the smoking gun, by then it will be too late."

Can we go after Iraq without the assistance of our Arab allies in the Middle East?   Sometimes when you are doing the right thing, you have to go alone.  Taking into consideration, however, Saddam Hussein's well-known intentions of gaining nuclear capability, the chances are that the United States will have more allies than we realize.  Aside from our most outspoken supporters like Israel and Great Britain, there exist other countries like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and Turkey who will most likely allow the U.S. military to operate at bases in the region, without being vocal cheerleaders.

The United States has the ability to focus on both Iraq and the war on terrorism simultaneously.  In some cases, there exists common ground.  To achieve this, however, requires a robust military with broad capabilities that can conduct both conventional and anti-terrorist operations.  With the best-trained, most dedicated military in the world, we have many options available for an attack, ranging from conventional ground forces to strategic air assaults.  The one option we do not possess is time.

Iraq has stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, supported terrorism around the globe, invaded its neighbors, used chemical weapons against its own people and continues to this day to develop weapons of mass destruction.  The prospect of an unbalanced Middle East with a nation like Iraq possessing nuclear weapons is unacceptable.  Saddam Hussein's propensity towards violence, coupled with his lack of appreciation for human life, clearly shows that action is needed.  To do nothing is simply irresponsible.  There exists two ways of divesting Saddam Hussein of this technology and capability; expect him to voluntarily give it up, or to take it from him.  Our choice is clear.