With volleys of missiles and laser-guided bombs unleashed against
Iraq, the United States and Britain have opened a new chapter in the
history of warfare.
In the past, massive military might has been employed to repel
invaders, capture and hold territory, or crush insurgencies.
But the attacks on Iraq that began late Wednesday represent the
first use of sustained force in a bid to preempt the use of
biological, and nuclear weapons, widely seen as the leading post-
cold-war threat to US international interests and global stability.
In unleashing the airstrikes, experts say, the US and Britain show
a willingness to resort to military means to curb the threat when
diplomatic, political, and economic measures have failed. With that
threat expected to grow, the new century could see these partners
taking such action again against proliferators.
"We are opening up a whole new uncharted territory," says Joseph
Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace in Washington. "Once something is used for the
first time, it becomes easier to use again. Iraq is a harbinger of
Only once in modern history has a military attack been launched
solely to thwart a program of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
That was a limited operation in 1981, in which Israeli war jets
destroyed a French-built nuclear-research reactor in Iraq to prevent
its use in making an atomic bomb.
As additional evidence of the new US willingness to employ massive
and "sustained" force to counter WMD proliferation, experts point to
an American initiative, unveiled this month, that would make
combating the threat a new mission of the NATO alliance.
The new stance is in line with President Clinton's oft-stated
pledge to bolster US military and intelligence capabilities to
protect American interests against WMD.
Yet experts, some of whom argue that the spread of WMD is fueled
by America's overwhelming superiority in advanced conventional
weapons, raise questions about the effectiveness of military force.
Short of a full-scale invasion, they ask, can such use of force be
any more effective than other measures in stopping determined rulers
like Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from developing WMD?
In the case of biological weapons, they note, a kitchen-size room
is big enough to house a production facility and small enough to
escape airstrikes. Factories that make baby food or beverages can
secretly be adapted to make chemical weapons.
"There is a confluence of factors ... that make it very difficult
to fight this fight," says Steve Yetiv, an expert on Iraq at Old
Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. …