Containment is a better strategy against Iraq than fighting a direct war, according to Dartmouth Professor Daryl Press, who spoke Monday on "Phase II: Attack on Saddam."
Press laid out two points he thought best made the case for an invasion of Iraq -- defense against a possible attack against the United States and the possibility of installing a progressive government in the Arab world.
He then presented some reasons not to invade. An invasion would increase Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's incentive to respond with weapons of mass destruction, Hussein would draw the United States into a destructive urban war and such a war could provoke a resurgence of fundamentalism or the overthrowing of friendly governments in the region.
"It's a strange time," said Press. America is experiencing "a thoroughly open, long debate about whether we're going to get up and invade another country."
Dressed in a yellow button-down shirt, khaki shorts and sandals before a crowd of about 40 students at Kappa Kappa Kappa fraternity, Press spoke carefully but casually, quickly making well-reasoned points.
Hussein had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons in the past and was trying to get nuclear weapons at considerable cost to himself and his country, according to Press.
Hussein has a record of using some of these weapons, leading Press to comment "We're afraid of what Iraq might do to us."
One progressive argument for attacking Iraq was that the United States had "an opportunity to use force to make the world a better place."
By this argument, the United States would reinvent Iraq like they did Japan after World War II, with a democratic government that would be friendly to the United States and its allies and would promote a better quality of life for the Iraqi people.
"You have to weigh those objectives against the unknown and kind of unknowable risks," said Press.
The first risk was that Hussein being backed into a corner by a U.S. assault would increase his incentive to strike back with weapons of mass destruction.
However, Press later said that many leaders responsible for even worse atrocities than Hussein's -- including Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung -- had been armed with nuclear weapons throughout the 20th century and had not used them.
"We have 50 years of evidence that even mass murderers seem really cautious when someone could obliterate them as a response," he said.
A risk Press took more seriously was that Hussein would draw U.S. assault forces in to an urban battle.
"If you don't like what happened in Jenin, you really wouldn't like what would happen in Baghdad," Press said. Urban warfare usually leads to high casualties for both the attacking and defending soldiers, a high number of civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure.
Finally, Press said "Maybe this will lead thousands of civilians around the world to be convinced that the fundamentalists are right."
This could lead to the toppling of governments friendly or semi-friendly to the United States in the Arab world, or further terrorist attacks against the United States.
Press laid out three ways in which the United States could attack Iraq. The first -- covert operations to kill Hussein -- is already underway. The second Press called the "Afghanistan Option" -- seeding the countryside with hundreds of spotters to identify targets for airstrikes while encouraging local movements against Hussein. The third is full invasion.
In answer to a question about the necessity of local states' involvement, Press noted that Middle Eastern nations were probably saying they would not support an assault because they did not want to get ahead of the United States by agreeing to an assault before it was certain one would take place. This refusal to support any attack is due to local politics and is intended as a "negotiation strategy" to keep from having to shoulder the cost of an invasion.
In response to the idea of an American invasion benefiting Iraqis, Student Assembly President Janos Marton '04 asked Press how he could justify U.S. policy to the Iraqi people when U.S.-sponsored sanctions continue to kill Iraqi children.
Press responded by saying that although sanctions had been disastrous for Iraqis when they began, the sanctions have been altered and the idea that devastation is continuing is a "myth."
In fact, Iraq now trades as much oil under the oil for food program as they did before the Persian Gulf War.
Press said he preferred a policy of containment like the one that let America win the Cold War to an assault. Speaking on nuclear weapons, Press said "the situation that's most likely that they're going to use one is if we invade them and say 'we're going to get you and your family out of power.'"
