America's New Rationale for War Strikes against Iraq's Secret Weapons Are a Military First
Jonathan S. Landay, writer of The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Monitor
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 chemical, 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 future conflicts." 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. …