Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Friday, July 26, 2002

Iraq Attack Inane, Dangerous
by Hubert G. Locke

It's difficult to think of anything more manifestly stupid, not to mention
dangerous, than the Bush administration's plans to launch a war with
Iraq. Dress it up in whatever language you please -- "regime change" is
the current term of choice among administration hard-hats -- the announced
intent to topple the government of Saddam Hussein and rid the Middle East
of this despot is about as inane as anything the government of the United
States has proposed to do in the past year or so. And that, in itself, is
saying a lot.

To dispense with the outcries from the right, on one matter there is no
argument: Saddam is not a nice person. He has used poisoned gas in attacks
on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq and launched Scud missiles against
Israelis during the war with Kuwait. He is in a prolonged feud with the
United Nations because he persists in research on, and presumably the
production of, other chemical and biological weapons; he has already
demonstrated he has no compunction about using them.

If he had a nuclear device or access to one, he would likely set it off
without a moment's hesitation. His presence on the political scene in the
Middle East is not one that would be missed by peace-loving people.

This having been said, we are compelled to take note of several other
matters. First, if getting rid of rogues with a fascination with weapons
of mass destruction is a criterion for launching regime changes, there are
a number of other candidates who deserve critical attention.

Some are unknown -- such as the shadowy figures in the former Soviet Union
who are alleged to be able to put their hands on that country's huge and
poorly guarded nuclear weapons stockpile. Others are on the list of this
country's continuously floating crap-game of allies (on the list in one
moment, off the next). Among them is the president of Pakistan, who is now
a favorite in Washington because he supports our war against the Taliban
-- a government that this time last year his country enthusiastically
supported.

Second, if the rules of international relations have been changed so that
we can go around ousting whichever governments we don't happen to like, we
shall have to recognize that we are not the only ones who want to play
this game. Effecting a regime change is exactly what the fanatics in Islam
want to accomplish, only the regime they want to topple is the United
States and what they consider its morally decadent Western culture and
values.

But the main reason all the rhetoric of the past several months is so
outlandish is its apparent assumption that Saddam is an idiot. Are we to
suppose that -- while the media carry almost daily accounts of war plans
being drawn up, troop estimates made, allies enlisted and announcements
issued, all signaling our intent to invade Iraq, march on Baghdad and
bring about Saddam's demise -- he is just sitting there, twiddling his
thumbs and wondering when or where the first bomb is going to drop?

Has there ever been a nation before in all of history so confident of the
superiority of its cause and its power -- and so willing to dismissively
consider the "collateral damage" that its action would entail -- that it
advertised for months in advance its bellicose intent? (One does come to
mind, but I dare not mention it.)

It is of more than passing interest that the war-drum beating regarding
Saddam and Iraq has had an inverse relation to the Dow-Jones Industrial
Average; as the latter has plummeted, the former has intensified. George
W. Bush wouldn't be the first national leader to launch a war that
effectively managed to divert attention from a shattered economy, a level
of public distrust regarding business and political leadership that is
palpable and a sense of national malaise of growing proportion.

So, I would keep an eye on the stock market over the months ahead. (If I
were Saddam, I'd do the same). It may be the best indicator of if and when
this insane campaign against Iraq is launched.

Hubert G. Locke, Seattle, is a retired professor and former dean of the
Daniel J. Evans Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of
Washington.