If he is able eventually to acquire nuclear weapons or to.
strengthen his alleged chemical and biological weapons capabilities, he will be an.
even more alarming figure, and presumably even more difficult to deal with. It is.
this fear of the future, this concern about the possible growth of Saddam's.
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities, that are at the heart of the case.
for war now. Indeed, this is the essence of the logic of preventive war: better war.
now than later.1.
An unavoidable war. But advocates of the war argue not simply that this would be.
a cheap and beneficial step. They suggest that it is a necessary, even an unavoidable,.
war because no acceptable policy alternative exists. The only way to adequately deal.
with Saddam, according to this view, is to use force. The conclusion that preventive.
war is the only effective option rests on five key judgments:.
1. The containment of Saddam is failing. For nearly a dozen years, Saddam has.
been contained and handicapped by the constraints and limitations he was compelled.
to accept in the aftermath of his defeat in the 1991 Gulf war. But this approach never.
worked perfectly and has degraded across time. For many proponents of the war, the.
containment policy has deteriorated to the point that it can no longer be regarded as effective. And, importantly, because international will to enforce Iraqi compliance has.
eroded, the system of constraints, sanctions, and limitations cannot be repaired or.
strengthened. As Pollack argues, while in theory it might be possible to create arrangements.
that would improve the containment system, "such a deal is unimaginable in.
the UN Security Council today, where many of the members compete to see who can.
appease Iraq most."13.
A person would be right to question any suggestion that we should.
just get inspectors back into Iraq and then our worries will be over.
Saddam has perfected the game of cheat and retreat, and is very.