Can Iraq be right for once?

Great Debates
41

notcynical, I think we are saying the same thing, but you are speaking in French and I in Creole. :slight_smile:

I’m saying that mere possession of WMD will never be a US causus belli partly because such a policy would obligate us to attack Great Britain - and (barring massive unforeseen changes) we will never do such a thing.

Instead, the policy appears to be that possession of WMD would be a causus belli if, in addition:

  1. The regime possessing the WMD is hostile to the U.S. and there is a real chance that the regime will use said WMD against the US or its allies; or
  2. The regime is hostile to the U.S. and is using its possession of WMD as a deterrent while it engages in conventional attacks against neighbors; or
  3. The regime has failed to establish safeguards and there is a significant risk that terrorists/blackmailers/etc. will obtain the WMD (though in this instance I think the attack would only be to secure and remove the WMD); AND
  4. The cost of the war, in lives and property, does not shock the conscience.

Sua

42

Good answers, Sua.

I think the key perspective is that, while the United States is in favor of nuclear non-proliferation, it is not entitled or willing in general to go to war in support of that policy.

The US is willing, and claims entitlement through the UN, to do so with Iraq because disarmament was a specific agreement in the cessation of hostilities from the previous conflict.

The US does not have such a claim with regards to North Korea. The 1994 agreement did not (AFAIK) include language to indicate that a breach would trigger hostilities.

I still don’t think it is a good idea to attack Iraq, but the inconsistency between our strategies is not so hypocritical.