Wouldn't it be nice
to be rid of Saddam Hussein? That's how
the Bush administration has managed to
frame the debate over war with Iraq. In
its cheerful scenario, there really
won't be much of a fight: Our peerless
military will crush all resistance, the
Iraqi army will quickly disintegrate,
the dictator will meet his just fate,
and Iraq will enter the community of
civilized nations under American
tutelage.
The administration must be employing
some of those executives from Enron and
Arthur Andersen, who could double-book
revenues while making costs disappear,
yielding a sunny outlook in good times
and bad. If things go according to plan,
the war with Iraq will be short and
almost painless. But there are other
possibilities that have not been spelled
out to the American people--who may wake
up one day to horrors they never
imagined.
The United Nations'
push to get Iraq to admit weapons
inspectors may have lulled Americans
into thinking that war will be averted.
But the Bush administration clearly
expects that Hussein is merely stalling,
and that sooner or later he will balk.
And that will mean war.
So we ought to remember Murphy's Law and
consider the potential pitfalls. Among
them: A global recession brought on by a
spike in oil prices. Bloody
house-to-house fighting in the streets
of Baghdad. A civil war among contending
groups in Iraq after Hussein is gone. A
long and difficult occupation in which
American forces become the targets of
indigenous rebels and Al Qaeda fighters.
Unrest that brings radicals to power in
oil-rich Saudi Arabia or nuclear-armed
Pakistan.
Those are only the beginning. No one has
paid much attention to the recent
revelation that U.S. intelligence
officials are convinced Iraq has stocks
of smallpox germs. Once we invade, it
would be no surprise to see outbreaks of
the virus in American cities, unleashed
by covert Iraqi operatives already
hiding within our borders.
Thirty years ago, smallpox would hardly
have been cause for concern, since
virtually everyone had been vaccinated.
But inoculations stopped in 1972, and
many of those who once had immunity may
have lost it. So the disease could rage
across the country, sowing death and
hysteria. Our only sure protection is to
embark on mass inoculations
beforehand--but that option carries the
near-certainty of hundreds of deaths
from the vaccine itself.
The list of things that could go wrong
in a war with Iraq doesn't end there.
Saddam Hussein is assumed to have large
stores of chemical and biological
weapons. Because he didn't use them in
the 1991 Gulf War, Americans may assume
he won't use them this time. But then,
he refrained because he knew using
weapons of mass destruction would bring
instant annihilation. This time, knowing
he is doomed regardless, he may as well
unleash everything he has.
Once American troops set foot on Iraqi
soil, they may be bombarded with poison
gas. Just the other day, it was learned
that Iraq has ordered large supplies of
a nerve gas antidote, which would come
in handy to protect its troops and
civilians. Our soldiers will be able to
don protective gear, but how much
protection they will have is open to
question: Newsday reports that some
types of gas can fool our chemical
detectors, and that half the masks
tested in a 1999 study had serious
defects. The casualty count could
skyrocket.
Hussein also has missiles that could hit
Israel, as he did in 1991--only this
time, loaded with anthrax or sarin.
Under heavy pressure from Washington,
Israel didn't retaliate the last time.
But Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has
vowed that Israel will strike back if
it's attacked again.
That sounds fine--except that if Israel
suffers heavy casualties, Sharon may use
his own weapons of mass destruction. A
poison gas attack on Tel Aviv could
precipitate a nuclear strike against
Baghdad, killing hundreds of thousands
and creating unimaginable repercussions.
Could anything be worse than that? Maybe
so. Daniel Benjamin, co-author of the
new book, "The Age of Sacred Terror,"
points out that in the chaos of war,
Iraq's worst weapons could be smuggled
to Al Qaeda by enterprising military
officers or by Saddam Hussein, intent on
exacting revenge against America by any
means possible--creating what Benjamin
calls "the greatest proliferation
disaster in history."
It was possible to deter Saddam Hussein
from using chemical and biological
weapons. But those weapons may soon be
in the hands of fanatical terrorists who
can't be deterred--ready for use
whenever Osama bin Laden gives the word.
Americans are looking forward to a
brief, easy conflict that will make the
world a safer place, and they may very
well get it. But they should also
realize that more than any war we've
fought in the past half-century, this
one carries the real risk of
catastrophe.
----------
E-mail:
schapman@tribune.com