

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
SECRETARY OF STATE Colin Powell has given three reasons for a US-led war in Iraq:
Even if these points are true, a US-launched ground war aimed at overthrowing Hussein would be a dangerous over-reaction.
While Iraq may have some chemical or biological weapons, it is far from alone in this respect. Of 193 nations, only 115 have signed both the treaty that bans chemical weapons and the treaty that bans biological weapons. Twenty-five countries, including Israel, Egypt, and Syria, have not signed either ban and 53 others have signed just one of the two treaties. Like Iraq, some of these 78 countries have repressive authoritarian regimes. Yet obviously the United States cannot forcibly change all repressive governments in countries that may have chemical or biological weapons and channels by which terrorists might obtain those weapons.
In fact, a major war to overthrow Saddam could actually increase the risk of terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction because it could fuel the fury of Islamic fundamentalists, sealing their determination to obtain chemical, biological, or radiological weapons to use in acts of revenge on behalf of the Islamic world.
A better way to respond to Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions -- a way that is morally justified, legal under international law, commensurate with the problem and likely to reduce the risks of terrorist attack -- is a process of ''disarming'' inspections, aimed at bringing about weapons of mass destruction disarmament in Iraq. The reinforced inspection process should start with a new UN resolution that lists specific requirements and specific consequences if the requirements are not met, along the following lines:
To insure that Iraq does not try to move or hide possible chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities identified by US and other intelligence agencies, there should be continuous surveillance flights throughout Iraq. U-2 and other surveillance aircraft, drones, and satellites can provide detailed digital imagery of the entire area of Iraq, which can be rapidly analyzed by computer programs focusing on suspect locations, structures, and movements.
To support the disarming inspections, the UN would keep sizable forces in the region, perhaps 50,000 ground and air combat and support troops, drawn from many countries, with contingents deployed on a rotating basis.
This beefed-up inspection regime would raise the barrier to a unilateral US war in Iraq by explicitly addressing the dangers the United States is citing as a casus belli: the possibility that Iraq either now has hidden chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities, or will in future obtain chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. On-going, reinforced inspections will assure that all suspect sites can be searched without being sanitized, and they will assure that Iraq cannot start any new production program.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
SECRETARY OF STATE Colin Powell has given three reasons for a US-led war in Iraq:
Even if these points are true, a US-launched ground war aimed at overthrowing Hussein would be a dangerous over-reaction.
While Iraq may have some chemical or biological weapons, it is far from alone in this respect. Of 193 nations, only 115 have signed both the treaty that bans chemical weapons and the treaty that bans biological weapons. Twenty-five countries, including Israel, Egypt, and Syria, have not signed either ban and 53 others have signed just one of the two treaties. Like Iraq, some of these 78 countries have repressive authoritarian regimes. Yet obviously the United States cannot forcibly change all repressive governments in countries that may have chemical or biological weapons and channels by which terrorists might obtain those weapons.
In fact, a major war to overthrow Saddam could actually increase the risk of terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction because it could fuel the fury of Islamic fundamentalists, sealing their determination to obtain chemical, biological, or radiological weapons to use in acts of revenge on behalf of the Islamic world.
A better way to respond to Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions -- a way that is morally justified, legal under international law, commensurate with the problem and likely to reduce the risks of terrorist attack -- is a process of ''disarming'' inspections, aimed at bringing about weapons of mass destruction disarmament in Iraq. The reinforced inspection process should start with a new UN resolution that lists specific requirements and specific consequences if the requirements are not met, along the following lines:
To insure that Iraq does not try to move or hide possible chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities identified by US and other intelligence agencies, there should be continuous surveillance flights throughout Iraq. U-2 and other surveillance aircraft, drones, and satellites can provide detailed digital imagery of the entire area of Iraq, which can be rapidly analyzed by computer programs focusing on suspect locations, structures, and movements.
To support the disarming inspections, the UN would keep sizable forces in the region, perhaps 50,000 ground and air combat and support troops, drawn from many countries, with contingents deployed on a rotating basis.
This beefed-up inspection regime would raise the barrier to a unilateral US war in Iraq by explicitly addressing the dangers the United States is citing as a casus belli: the possibility that Iraq either now has hidden chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities, or will in future obtain chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. On-going, reinforced inspections will assure that all suspect sites can be searched without being sanitized, and they will assure that Iraq cannot start any new production program.
SECRETARY OF STATE Colin Powell has given three reasons for a US-led war in Iraq:
Even if these points are true, a US-launched ground war aimed at overthrowing Hussein would be a dangerous over-reaction.
While Iraq may have some chemical or biological weapons, it is far from alone in this respect. Of 193 nations, only 115 have signed both the treaty that bans chemical weapons and the treaty that bans biological weapons. Twenty-five countries, including Israel, Egypt, and Syria, have not signed either ban and 53 others have signed just one of the two treaties. Like Iraq, some of these 78 countries have repressive authoritarian regimes. Yet obviously the United States cannot forcibly change all repressive governments in countries that may have chemical or biological weapons and channels by which terrorists might obtain those weapons.
In fact, a major war to overthrow Saddam could actually increase the risk of terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction because it could fuel the fury of Islamic fundamentalists, sealing their determination to obtain chemical, biological, or radiological weapons to use in acts of revenge on behalf of the Islamic world.
A better way to respond to Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions -- a way that is morally justified, legal under international law, commensurate with the problem and likely to reduce the risks of terrorist attack -- is a process of ''disarming'' inspections, aimed at bringing about weapons of mass destruction disarmament in Iraq. The reinforced inspection process should start with a new UN resolution that lists specific requirements and specific consequences if the requirements are not met, along the following lines:
To insure that Iraq does not try to move or hide possible chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities identified by US and other intelligence agencies, there should be continuous surveillance flights throughout Iraq. U-2 and other surveillance aircraft, drones, and satellites can provide detailed digital imagery of the entire area of Iraq, which can be rapidly analyzed by computer programs focusing on suspect locations, structures, and movements.
To support the disarming inspections, the UN would keep sizable forces in the region, perhaps 50,000 ground and air combat and support troops, drawn from many countries, with contingents deployed on a rotating basis.
This beefed-up inspection regime would raise the barrier to a unilateral US war in Iraq by explicitly addressing the dangers the United States is citing as a casus belli: the possibility that Iraq either now has hidden chemical or biological weapon stocks or facilities, or will in future obtain chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. On-going, reinforced inspections will assure that all suspect sites can be searched without being sanitized, and they will assure that Iraq cannot start any new production program.