This text was written in November 2002 by John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University. It takes part in the aftermath of 9/11, and the debate over the necessity of a war in Iraq, to prevent it from getting weapons of mass destruction. The authors contest the necessity of a preemptive war and stand up for a policy of containment. Most of the reasons advanced by the advocates of war are not convincing (" Saddam is a bloodshed tyrant, he backs terrorism, war will spread democracy?), as well as their belief that Saddam Hussein is too dangerous to be deterred or contained if he acquires nuclear weapons. Both history and logic undermine this argument.
[...] Advocates of a preventive war also point out the past use Saddam Hussein made of chemical weapons, in Iran and against the Kurds, and so the threat he represents. But the Kurdish people didn't have a similar arsenal and could not threaten to respond. The situation would be totally different if Iraq faced the United States, which has the capability to retaliate with WMD. This explains well why Iraq did not use WMD against the US during the Gulf War. [...]
[...] First of all Saddam Hussein is not another Hitler. He is neither an inveterate aggressor (only two conflicts with his neighbors since he came to power) nor an irrational madman. Even the wars against Iran and Kuwait show that Saddam's behavior was far from reckless, but rather reasonable. - In 1980, Saddam respond to Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini's attempt to extend the Islamic revolution in Iraq; it was a limited and defensive war. - During the Gulf war, Saddam tried to find a solution to the economic weariness of Iraq (Kuwait refused to extend a loan to Iraq as well as to write off its debts. [...]
[...] Walt - Can Saddam be contained? History says yes This text was written in November 2002 by John J. Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University. It takes part in the aftermath of 9/11 and the debate over the necessity of a war in Iraq, to prevent it from getting weapons of mass destruction. The authors contest the necessity of a preemptive war and stand up for a policy of containment. [...]
[...] There is no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, due to the genuine animosity between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. There is no point for Saddam in doing such a handoff, for it would jeopardize existence. On the other hand such a transfer would not be unnoticed and the United State would inevitably know about it. As a conclusion, the proponents of the war in Iraq try to inflate the threat to justify their stance. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
