<

OPINION: On to Baghdad? Yes -- The Risks Are Overrated
Monday, December 3, 2001
By Daniel Pipes & Jonathan Schanzer

Saddam Hussein represents the single greatest danger to the United States, not to speak of the rest of the world. Today, with Americans mobilized, is exactly the right moment to dispatch him.

AS the war in Afghanistan winds down, the argument over Iraq is heating up.

The Bush administration has dropped some heavy hints about the need to rid the world of the Saddam Hussein regime. In response, some are denouncing this prospect. Their dissenting views, which fall under six main rubrics, need to be taken very seriously.

Catastrophe: A "great catastrophe" will follow if an Arab country is hit, predicts Jordan's King Abdullah II. Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara warns of "endless problems" if any Arab country is struck.

Sounds ominous -- but these two leaders forget to explain just why ousting Saddam would be so terrible. Or why it would be worse than leaving him in power. Khidhir Hamza, former head of Iraq's nuclear program, estimates that his old boss will have "three to five nuclear weapons by 2005." Given Saddam's well-established viciousness and aggression, this would be the true catastrophe, not his losing power.

Coalition busting: "Striking against any Arab country will be the end of harmony within the international alliance against terrorism," says Amr Moussa, secretary-general of the Arab League. Gernot Erler of Germany's Social Democrat party is more specific: An attack on Iraq "would certainly mean the end of the broad political alliance against terrorism."

To which the sensible reply is -- So what? The attacks on Sept. 11 were against the United States, not Egypt or Germany. The U.S. priority is to win the war against terrorism, not make new friends.
(More: NYPost.com News Source)
2001 © New York Post.

Dan