The risks of unilateral war with Iraq

It is fortunate, both for our nation and the world, that the United States is unlikely to pursue unilateral action against Iraq. Although belligerent rhetoric continues to emanate from the White House and Pentagon, it seems that the Bush administration understands the importance of allies — if even a select 'coalition of the willing' — to a military campaign.

A unilateral war with Iraq would carry with it immediate practical concerns and risks. First, a vigilante United States would obtain little support from Turkey, or, potentially, Saudi Arabia, both of which were strategically critical bases during the Gulf War. Launching a major military assault in Iraq without bases in either country would be logistically thorny.

Second — and perhaps less considered — is the potential of something going wrong. The possibility that Hussein could unleash chemical or biological weapons (or burn his oil fields) if backed into a corner is real, though underplayed by supporters of the war. To whom would the United States turn for support, should military plans backfire? Also, recent U.S. fighting in Afghanistan showed that, despite advanced technology, civilians too often become 'collateral damage.' What if, as U.S. forces close in on Baghdad, a hospital, school, or other major civilian center is inadvertently demolished, killing a significant number of Iraqi citizens? Blame would fall squarely — and solely — on the United States. Haters of America worldwide would be vindicated, and Middle Eastern regimes currently struggling to maintain good relations with the U.S. could find themselves under considerable pressure from anti-American extremists. A multilateral operation would diffuse (though by no means remove) humanitarian responsibility.

Even if a U.S. military campaign is successful, and Saddam Hussein ousted, there is the question of successful post-conflict reconstruction. As countless experts and commentators have made clear, an anarchic Iraq could be far more dangerous than the one currently ruled by Hussein. And although, as some have argued, the temptation of oil profits may eventually attract some nations to provide development aid, it would not supply much-needed peacekeepers for the potentially bloody and turbulent days following the demise of the Ba'ath party. Absent a large military presence, the settling of old scores is likely to be brutal. Even if the U.S. is willing and able to muster the manpower for the job, it would be difficult to sustain the political will to maintain a commitment for the months — and indeed years — that it may take to assure stability. Given regional attitudes towards the United States, it seems that baby blue flags would be better received than stars and bars.

A unilateral strike would also put strain on the current international system. It would considerably undermine the United Nations, whose role in approving and implementing Resolution 1441 has made it a key actor in the crisis. Ignoring the U.N. at this point would be a slap in the face to both the organization and the 14 other Security Council members who put their faith in its process with a unanimous vote last month. NATO, too, would be stretched at the seams as European partners reacted to the betrayal of understandings recently reached at Prague. Indeed, it would be difficult for the United States to gain the trust of its allies again, making any sort of coalition warfare impossible in the near future.

International order would be further tested by the precedent set by an attack without allies. Should the United States, decades down the road, find itself no longer in the privileged position of world hegemon, it might well regret unlocking a Pandora's box that has been slowly shutting for the past half-century. While the U.N. system is certainly not perfect, and international law is still developing, a war with no international legitimacy would undercut much that the United States has historically sought to achieve.

The good news is, it looks like we won't go it alone. The strong support of the new inspections regime, both in the U.N. Security Council and in NATO, indicates the degree of international seriousness that US 'tough-talk' has provoked. While disagreements may arise as to the interpretation of a "material breach" of the resolution and implicit mandate for action, it seems probable that the Bush administration will have the wisdom — and diplomatic tact — to assemble at least a few key partners before it begins any major military operation in Iraq. Anika Binnendijk is a Wilson School major from Bethesda, Md. She can be reached at abinnend@princeton.edu.