The Silence of the Bombs

George W. Bush repeatedly insists that Iraq poses a direct military threat to the U.S. This claim seems rather strange in light of the fact that it is the U.S. that has been bombing Iraq -- not just threatening -- nonstop for nearly four years.

Before exploring the history of U.S. attacks on Iraq and the Iraqi government's response -- which has been limited to 1) anti-aircraft attacks within territorial airspace; and 2) appeals to the world community -- let's first address the obvious.

Granted, Saddam Hussein is a bad man. He has murdered his opponents, assassinated members of his governing inner circle and even killed members of his own family. He employed chemical weapons against Iran (using ingredients and technology supplied by the U.S.) and attacked other countries (again, with either the quiet approval or active support of the U.S.). He even eats his pet gazelles.

That said, let's address the question of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). If Saddam still possessed these weapons (and most knowledgeable sources, from the CIA down, claim he does not) why has he neither used, nor threatened to use them in response to the continued -- and increasing -- air bombardment by U.S. and British warplanes?

Those who know him characterize Hussein as "a survivor," not a madman. Like every other world leader, Saddam knows that even the threat of using WMDs would invite a U.S. attack. There is, then, only one situation under which Hussein would ever be likely resort to the use of WMD -- if his country were being invaded and his political power and his life were at stake.

The U.S. simultaneously claims that Iraq has WMDs and that UN weapons inspectors won't be able to find them. In Bush's New World Judicial Order, suspicions and accusations overrule evidence. If the White House is so certain that Iraq still possesses WMDs, it should provide its evidence to the weapons inspectors. That would speed up their work immeasurably.

The big bugaboo is the U.S. claim (again unsubstantiated) that Iraq is again seeking to build a nuclear arsenal. The odd thing about the U.S.'s position on nations with nukes is that nations seeking to acquire nuclear weapons are a grave danger while nations that already have nuclear weapons are somehow less of a threat.

If possessing nuclear weapons were such a concern, the U.S. would be pushing the UN to authorize weapons inspectors to enter Pakistan, Israel, China, France and Britain. I'm surprised that the wily Hussein has not asked the UN to subject the U.S. to "unconditional weapons inspections" since the U.S. maintains perhaps the world's largest stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S.'s greatest fear is not that Hussein would use a nuclear weapon in an act of retaliation (or revenge through terrorist proxies) -- that action would be suicidal and Hussein knows it. What the possession of nuclear arms really means is that the U.S. would no longer be able to threaten Iraq as a dominant military power. If Iraq "had the bomb," Bush would not be able to risk invading the country to expel Hussein and set-up a pro-American ruler to uphold "America's vital interests."

And Now, Some History

On July 25, 1990, eight days before Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein. According to a transcript of the conversation later released to the British press by Iraq, Saddam explained his strategic claims on Iran and Kuwait and asked: "What is the United States' opinion on this?"

The tape transcript records Glaspie's reply: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."