Arguments Made For, Against Iraq War

Two leading voices in the American political arena differed last night over whether the United States should launch an attack on Iraq.

MIT Professor and former CIA director John Deutch argued the issue with William Kristol ’73 in a debate that packed the ARCO Forum.

According to Kristol, who is the founding editor of the influential conservative political journal The Weekly Standard, the stability in the Middle East and the future of democracy depend upon destroying Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime.

“The urgency of replacing Saddam’s regime comes from his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,” Kristol said. “His past use of terrorism as an instrument of statecraft and threats to revitalize his nuclear program makes a quick and decisive attack necessary.”

Kristol added he believed more passive responses to Hussein’s threats would be futile, saying that “weapons inspections are ineffective in the context of a hostile government like Iraq” and official American policy of deterrence against Iraq is an inappropriate for “a risk-taking tyrant like Saddam.”

Closing his arguments, Kristol ominously asked the audience, “What will the world look like 10 years from now, if dictators like Saddam succeed in obtaining weapons of mass destruction? It’s a terrifying thought.”

Saying he agreed with Kristol that Hussein should be removed from power, Deutch answered the calls for war with a plea for discretion. He insisted the U.S. needs to understand the government that will succeed Saddam and enlist the support of other states before the it invades.

“We need to replace Saddam’s regime, but I don’t think we’re ready to do it in a way that maximizes chances of creating greater stability in the interests of the U.S. and the Middle East,” Deutch said. “The objective of the attack is right, but the timing is wrong.”

Instead of supporting the immediate launch of U.S. troops into the heart of Iraq,

Deutch recommended the occupation of Iraq’s peripheral regions until America has a “clearer view of the character and extent of our military involvement.”

Kristol answered Deutch’s hesitancy to attack by emphasizing Saddam’s ability to strike American interests if he is left alone.

“The risks of retaliation by Saddam with biochemical or nuclear weapons argues against Deutch’s military buildup and rallying the region,” Kristol said.

“We can’t empower terrorists around the world by standing idle while they threaten mass destruction,” he said.