Is Bush Provoking an Attack?

Date Published:

Abstract:

Ranchers have learned painfully the wisdom of the maxim: when pursuing deadly rattlesnakes, don't provoke the fatal attack you are aiming to prevent. Does the Bush administration's chosen strategy of publicized preemption risk violating that prescription?

President George W. Bush believes not. In this week's address to the nation, the essence of his argument for acting now is that we must hit Saddam before he hits us. Unless we take preemptive action to disarm Iraq and eliminate Saddam, he argued "on any given morning," Saddam could surprise us with a chemical or biological 9/11.

The nation's best intelligence analysts disagree. As the latest National Intelligence Estimate, declassified this week, states unequivocally: in the absence of a US attack, the likelihood of Saddam attacking us with chemical and biological weapons in the foreseeable future is "low." On the other hand, if Saddam becomes convinced that we really are about to attack him to topple his regime, intelligence analysts conclude the likelihood that he would attack us with chemical or biological weapons is "high." In sum: to prevent an attack the likelihood of which is low, the US is taking action that makes the likelihood of that attack high.

Which of these conflicting judgments seems more likely to be correct: the president's or the intelligence community's? Since the competing bets are driven by strategic logic, not secret information, let us consider the question.

Bush presented the basic facts clearly in Monday's address. We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons including "anthrax and other deadly biological agents*mdash;capable of killing millions." We know that Iraq has "a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." We know that he "is exploring ways of using these UAV's for missions targeting the United States." We know that "a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative could deliver" biological agents to an American city. We know that those who hate America would be "eager to use biological or chemical or nuclear weapons." Thus "we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."

The issue remains how best to prevent the worst from occurring.

On the current path, for more than a year the Bush administration has broadcast its firm intention to change the regime in Iraq: to kill Saddam and everything he holds dear. Currently, the US is positioning military forces in the region in preparation for such an attack. A congressional resolution authorizing the president to take "all necessary means" has been passed. Shortly thereafter, a Security Council resolution authorizing intrusive inspections and, after Saddam stiffs inspectors, permitting a US-led military attack to disarm Iraq seems assured.

Given this picture, what do we imagine Saddam is now planning for us? Given Bush's summary of Saddam's character (evil), his history (homicidal), and his intentions (ruthlessly hostile), is he likely to go down with a whimper—or a bang? Will he attack Americans here at home? Has he already dispatched operatives to American cities with biological weapons like smallpox? Will he attack Israel with biological weapons? Will he infect bases in the region where American troops are preparing to launch an attack upon him? If Saddam's overriding objective is his own survival, as we launch, or finalize plans to launch, an attack that threatens to extinguish him, is there any reason to expect him to do less than his best to kill as many Americans as possible?

If the evidence the president cites is correct, the logic of the snake hunter's maxim would appear to lead inexorably to the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion: "Conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

Therefore, what to do? If one finds a pair of rattlesnakes in his backyard, backing off and hoping they slink away is not the answer. Nonetheless, prudence requires that before attacking a coiled rattler that has no escape route, we are as prepared as we can be to blunt its strike.

President Bush asked: "Does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?" The answer is: it depends. Specifically, it depends on whether his offensive capabilities to harm us are growing faster than our capabilities to defend ourselves against the counterattack our action may provoke.

Before taking action that will likely provoke the very attack we seek to prevent, Bush should assure Americans that our troops in the field and citizens here at home are prepared for the biological and chemical attacks the country's best intelligence analysts judge to be "likely." Have you gotten your anthrax and smallpox vaccinations yet?

Website