Please choose your delivery country and your customer group
In his January 29, 2002 State of the Union message, President Bush characterized Iraq as part of an axis of evil, along with Iran and North Korea. The President identified the key threat from Iraq as its development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the potential for Iraq to transfer WMD to the terrorist groups it sponsors. In recent statements, the President and other senior officials have said the United States needs to ensure that Saddam Husayn cannot be positioned to pose a major and imminent threat to U.S. national security. The Presidents subsequent statements have left observers with the clear implication that the Administration is leaning toward military action to achieve the ouster of Iraqs President Saddam Husayn and his Bath Party regime, although the President says no decision has been made on the means of achieving regime change. Regime change has been official U.S. policy since October 1998. Even before that, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam have been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991. These efforts primarily involved U.S. backing for opposition groups inside and outside Iraq. According to several experts, past efforts to change the regime floundered because of limited U.S. engagement, disorganization of the Iraqi opposition, and the efficiency and ruthlessness of Iraqs several overlapping intelligence and security forces. Previously, major U.S. military action to change the regime had been ruled out as too costly and risky and not necessarily justified by the level of Iraqs violations of its post-war obligations. Most experts believe that, should the Bush Administration decide to take action to overthrow Iraqs regime, nothing short of the direct use of U.S. armed force would guarantee Saddams downfall. Supporters of military action believe that the threat posed by a government headed by Saddam Husayn and in possession of substantial arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is so great that the United States must move, with unilateral military action if necessary, to change the regime. Advocates of military action add that U.S. action would lead to a regime that forswears WMD, respects the human rights and economic well-being of its people, and serves as a model for broader democratization in the Arab world. Opponents of military action maintain that there is little international support for unilateral U.S. military action to change Iraqs regime, that doing so could destabilize the Middle East, and that action could lead to numerous U.S. casualties and a long-term presence in Iraq. Others believe that the threat from Saddams regime is manageable through means currently in place, such as containment, or through stepped-up covert action. Some believe the United States should focus its efforts, in concert with other members of the U.N. Security Council, to obtain Iraqs compliance with long-standing U.N. requirements, such as the mandate that Iraq fully cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. U.N. inspectors have not been inside Iraq since December 1998, when a U.S.-Iraq confrontation over inspections led to their withdrawal.