Few doubt Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's propensity to cause trouble. Last week, President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions, or suffer the consequences.
U.S. policy-making has changed, Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman told the Senate last Friday.
"The threat Saddam poses has been articulated so often that some may have grown numbed to the reality of his brutality," the senator said.
"But after Sept. 11, we must reacquaint ourselves with it, because if we do not understand and act, his next victims, like Osama bin Laden's, could be innocent Americans."
Just as Capitol Hill policy makers tackle the prospect of a new war against Iraq, students also will debate the issue in Whig Hall's Senate chamber tonight at 9 p.m.
"Definitely, Saddam has to be dealt with some time in the near future," said Sam Spector '03, former president of Princeton Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Though Iraq may not now be able to deploy weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical or biological — when Iraq obtains the technology, Spector said he believes Hussein will not hesitate to use it.
During the Gulf War, Iraq possessed anthrax-laden bombs and missiles. Though the missiles ostensibly were destroyed after the war, Iraq's resistance to U.N. weapons inspectors has led some to question whether the weapons were destroyed.
Spector traveled to Israel during the summer to take part in a program sponsored by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy of Washington, D.C.
He and 25 other college students spent two-and-a-half weeks at Tel Aviv University, where they learned about the origins and roots of worldwide terrorism.
Counterterrorism officials from organizations such as the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies gave a unique perspective on how* Israel has been handling the issues that the United States is now beginning to face, Spector explained.
"The citizens of Israel are facing these sorts of threats on a day-to-day basis," Spector said.
Israeli citizens are now being given gas masks as a precaution against a possible chemical or biological attack from Iraq, he added.
This is not the first time such concerns have led to action in Israel, Spector said.
Gas masks were distributed during the Gulf War, when Iraq bombarded Israel with scud missiles.
An Iraqi threat to the United States is less than that to Israel because the United States is so far away.
And a link between Hussein and al-Qaida, the alleged terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11 attacks, is tenuous at best.
Spector focuses on the threat to U.S. citizens abroad and to all people throughout the world. He argued that unconventional threats must be responded to with unconventional actions. A regime change in Iraq is warranted, he said.
Despite the Iraqi government's claim that it has had no ties to al-Qaida, further investigation may prove otherwise.
A lawsuit filed Sept. 4 in the United States by some of the victims of the terrorist attacks asserts that Iraq conspired with al-Qaida and knew of plans for the attacks, according to The New York Times.
"This is a seething network of murderers who have penetrated Iraq and Middle Eastern countries . . . and it couldn't have happened without the approval of Saddam Hussein," a lawyer for the plaintiffs told The Times.
Iraq under Hussein has waged war against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and against Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the Gulf War.
Saddam also used chemical weapons against Kurds in his country.
Spector is convinced that the United States must take action now to remove Hussein from power.
Professor Jack Matlock — the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union during its collapse — sees things differently.
Matlock said forcing a regime change should not be the first option.
Though Matlock said the current confrontation between the United States and Iraq is much different from the Cold War, lessons he learned then still apply, and they make him wary of Bush's plan.
"I'm very disturbed that [the U.S. administration feels] you can only solve these problems by direct application of force," he said.
Just calling for regime change will not work, Matlock said. Reagan never called for the removal of the Soviet leaders during the Cold War, Matlock said.
The United States used other political and economic measures instead, he said.
Yet the past decade of sanctions on Iraq has not been effective, Matlock said.
Though they have hindered the development of weapons of mass destruction, he said economic sanctions generally do not work.
Hussein has used the sanctions as propaganda, undermining their purpose. Iraq said the sanctions caused hunger and poverty.
The international community should use sanctions that only target military and other goods which could have violent uses — not food and medicines — Matlock said.
And instead of a ground assault to unseat Hussein, Matlock said the United Nations should adopt a clear-cut nonmilitaristic approach.
"You don't even test a single rocket," Matlock would warn Saddam.
Bush's ultimatum holds Iraq to much more.
Matlock did not discount the idea of a ground attack if the United States can prove Iraq presents an imminent danger.
But he said Iraq's use of poisonous gas and biological weapons in the past is not enough evidence.
Matlock also does not accept the notion that Hussein makes what Matlock called "a habitual use of terror."
Though Matlock would prefer the United States not meddle in Iraqi politics, he still thinks weapons development sites warrant immediate action.
If the United States identifies those sites, they should be destroyed, Matlock said.
Specifically-targeted strikes could be used to take out weapons development sites, he said.
Finding those sites, however, is not easy without eyes on the ground.
U.N. weapons inspectors first entered Iraq after the Gulf War under the terms of the U.N. Security Council resolutions which ended the war.
The inspectors' goal was to locate and destroy Iraq's "biological, chemical and missile capabilities," according to Res. 687 of April, 1991.
These capabilities also violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which Iraq signed.
During the inspections, Iraq repeatedly prevented U.N. officials from visiting sites that it deemed sensitive. In 1998, Iraq stopped cooperating with the inspector.
The United States and United Kingdom subsequently launched, Operation Desert Fox to destroy Iraqi sites that are developing weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors have not been back since, and until recent events, U.S. and U.K. fighter jets patrolling no-fly zones in the north of Iraq have from time to time attacked anti-aircraft sites.
In a response to the U.S. ultimatum of this past week, Iraq said it would allow U.N. inspectors to return "without conditions."
Figuring out the logistics of the return may be the next hurdle. France has opposed the U.S. aim to begin military action by the end of the year if Iraq does not live up to its pledge.
In his U.N. speech, Bush suggested the United States might not wait for U.N. approval.
"We must stand up for our security . . . by heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand,'' he said.
He added, "Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."
But Matlock cautioned that military action should not be unilateral.
"If we have to use military force — or particularly, if we have to invade — then we should have international sanctions for it," he said.
A central component of Bush's campaign to win support for a war on Iraq has been alluding to the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Many nations represented here have joined in the fight against global terror," Bush said to the U.N. General Assembly.
Matlock is not convinced.
"The idea that somehow this is an integral part in the war against terrorism is more questionable," he said.
He said that justifying unilateral military action by citing terrorism may set an unacceptable precedent.
"Is Russia entitled now to attack Georgia because they think Georgia is protecting terrorists?" Matlock asked.
"We spent more time [during the Cold War] keeping our alliances secure, making sure the Europeans wanted to go along with us, and not just out of fear," he said. "That unity was terribly important."
Spector said he believes the United States lacks international support because it has confronted Iraq since 1991.
Once the United States shows it is willing to attack, Spector thinks support will come, "especially from inside Iraq."
Uprisings within Iraq, Spector said, show that some Iraqis want change.
"They want freedom. They need our help," he said.
Matt Schonfield '04, vice president of Princeton Committee Against Terrorism and PIPAC, supported Bush's ultimatum.
"Saddam has clearly, clearly demonstrated he's an aggressor, a megalomaniac," he said.
"Someone like that you don't want to have nuclear weapons."
Iraq must be singled out, he said, from the other countries developing weapons of mass destruction because Hussein himself makes the country "especially dangerous."
Schonfield said he thinks removing Saddam — whom he labeled the "linchpin" of anti-Americanism in the Middle East — would change the dynamics of the region for the better.
Without the influence of a dictator next door, reform movements may sweep through nearby countries like Iran, Schonfield said.
He added that removing Hussein will be a warning to other countries suspected of harboring terrorists throughout the world.
Spector said he thinks the symbolic blow to radicalism in the Middle East could contribute to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Spector and Schonfield noted that the consequences of removing Saddam are not fully clear.
Read More
Students weigh in on changes to hours at Murray-Dodge Café
Eojin ParkMurray-Dodge’s hours have been cut nearly in half. Previously, Murray-Dodge was open from 3 p.m. to midnight every day. Amid other closures of campus cafes, its hours have been reduced to 4:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily.
Murray-Dodge’s hours have been cut nearly in half. Previously, Murray-Dodge was open from 3 p.m. to midnight every day. Amid other closures of campus cafes, its hours have been reduced to 4:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. daily.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflects on path to the Supreme Court in campus lecture
Isaac Bernstein and Justus WilhoitAt Princeton’s Harlan Lecture, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed her journey to the Supreme Court, the power of dissenting opinions, and the importance of inspiring future generations.
At Princeton’s Harlan Lecture, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson discussed her journey to the Supreme Court, the power of dissenting opinions, and the importance of inspiring future generations.
Student employment in flux as University navigates budget cuts
Kian PetlinThe future of student employment remains uncertain amid budget cuts, with impacts ranging from reduced hours to staffing shortages.
The future of student employment remains uncertain amid budget cuts, with impacts ranging from reduced hours to staffing shortages.