Reasserting my warblogger cred Elizabeth Spiers has a long and thoughtful post up on Iraq, but I think she inadvertently skips over the most important point when she says:

I don't think Hussein would hesitate to exploit the political capital afforded by *having* nuclear weapons.

It seems to me that this is the key issue. A Hussein with nukes immediately redefines what the US can and cannot do in the Middle East. Suddenly he has a big hammer to hold over our heads, and we'll just have to bend knee and scrape along for fear that he *just might* do it this time. That's unacceptable. Furthermore, in terms of whether the war is "just" or not...it seems to me that if it accomplishes national security objectives (as outlined above) and if it can be won at little or no cost to us (which I think likely), then we should go ahead with it. Why do I think "little or no cost"? Because I don't think anyone can compete with the US military now. From a brutal realpolitik perspective, I think it will be highly unlikely that as many as 5000 American soldiers die in the attack. Sure, it'll cost a pretty penny to mobilize the troops, but that's a small price to pay to avoid the nuclear blackmail scenario outlined above. Finally - and importantly - Hussein's son, Qusay, is a madman by most definitions of the word. If we let Hussein live, Qusay will succeed him, and I don't think that will be a good idea in a nuclear state... Elizabeth responds: Being a realist is not the same thing as being a hawk. re: political capital and nukes: I think you highly overestimate the power of a nuclear Iraq. Propaganda about Hussein's "madman" persona (an image carefully crafted by Hussein himself) may be good for rallying support for the war, but Hussein hasn't historically proven to be irrational. The fact that Hussein has nukes doesn't mean he intends to use them offensively. As an ex-mentor of mine (also a realist and former Director of Defense and Arms Control) used to say, "The fact that there are red buttons to push doesn't mean that they will be pushed." Sure, we'd prefer that Hussein *not* have nukes. But this isn't a new problem. He's been trying to acquire them or build them since the 1960s. He already has chemical and biological (C/B) weapons and has declined to use them for purposes of mass destruction. If Hussein were so irrational and hellbent on destroying the U.S. at all costs, he could have and probably would have used them already. (There are certainly enough C/B buttons to be pushed.) But Hussein isn't irrational. He fully understands the ramifications of actually using nukes and isn't likely to ever push the red button. He wants nukes to help ward off hostile advances by the neighbors and generally only bullies other states when threatened. (Accounts of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait typically fail to mention that the Kuwaitis were drilling sideways at the border into Iraqi oilfields. Not that this justified the invasion, but Hussein didn't just roll out of bed one day and decide to take over Kuwait.) Let's say for the sake of argument, however, that you're right. Hussein with nukes is completely unacceptable. Is full-scale war the only way we can disarm him? We've sabotaged his nuclear ambitions plenty of times in the past without it. By your logic, why not invade Syria or Libya as well? If the object is to depose Hussein (and this is the real issue - the WMD threat is only a small component, but an easy sell to the public) it can likely be accomplished through other means. The regime isn't very stable in the first place. Iraq has a long history of conflict between the soldier and the state, and Iraq's civilian control of the military is largely enforced by Hussein's security services, which are in fragile states themselves. Hussein's a suspicious guy and has removed three close relatives from top posts in the last ten years. Qusay is a ruthless murderer but if he were a truly a madman, Hussein would have demoted him long ago, in the same manner he did Uday, the eldest son. Keep in mind that the madman image (and that's basically all it is) serves a purpose. Amoral butcher who ruthless eliminates dissenters, yes. (Just like *every* other head of security services in prior regimes.) Irrational sociopath? No. Neither son has the legitimacy Hussein does. Hussein is a party man who worked his way up. Uday and Qusay are just heirs, and as a result their support base hasn't penetrated the military, which is going to mean trouble controlling it after Hussein is dead. The brothers basically hate each other, so there would probably be a power struggle if Hussein died suddenly. In fact, the whole country would probably descend into chaos. The Kurds would probably attempt secession again and the military would have its hands full. You discount the just war aspect because you appear to think I'm making it from a moral standpoint, when I'm really making a legal argument. "Just" and "unjust" invasions are the difference between being hauled into international war crimes tribunals and not. It's not just an analytical framework; it's part of international law. It's also not a good idea to promote justification of pre-emptive warfare. Any state that feels threatened can attack its neighbor and feel totally justified by historical precedent. re: little or no cost to us - I don't think that's even an issue. We know that's true. And we know now that Hussein's bombast is usually bullshit. A guy that was on the national security council during the Gulf War once gave me a figure for the number of bodybags the DoD ordered at the conflict's outset, based on Hussein's claims about Iraq's purported capabilities. Only a minute fraction of them were actually used. Godless counters:

Hussein with nukes may change some of the dynamics in the Middle East, but a "big hammer over our heads?" I think not. We don't exactly "bend knee and scrape" with regard to foreign policy vis-a-vis North Korea and China, do we? Why would this be any different?

North Korea has played a game of nuclear extortion for quite a while now. China doesn't need to do this (or hasn't yet), but its nuclear weapons are a real problem for us with respect to the Taiwan issue. Because these countries possess nuclear weapons, we're constrained in terms of what we can do in the area. In the past, we've had to pull punches in combat for fear of starting a nuclear war, such as in Vietnam. Fortunately for us, the political situation in the areas surrounding North Korea and China is not as volatile as it is in the Middle East. As a consequence of the Korean War (prosecuted when China was not yet nuclear), Kim Il Sung's son is not as expansionist as he might otherwise be. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, not only would Hussein's blackmail demands match or exceed those of Kim-Jong Il, but it's likely that Iraq might settle some old scores in Kuwait and Iran. Furthermore, Iraq - unlike Korea and China - is proximal to a bed of terrorists just itching to get their hands on some WMDs. A bit of bribery might allow an independent actor like Al-Qaeda to get their hands on a nuke, which would be most undesirable. Note that Osama has tried unsuccessfully to get nukes in the past, and Iraq has sponsored terrorism before (though so far, not with Al Qaeda). My point: I don't think you can dismiss the threat of such weapons getting into irrational non-state-actor hands.

[Suppose] Hussein with nukes is completely unacceptable. Is full-scale war the only way we can disarm him? We've sabotaged his nuclear ambitions plenty of times in the past without it. By your logic, why not invade Syria or Libya as well?

Is full scale war the only way we can disarm him? I don't know what other options exist. It's true that Israel took out Iraq's nuclear program with an airstrike in 1981, but I don't think that Hussein is dumb enough to put all of his eggs in one basket again. We've tried and failed to assassinate him, and the oft-ejected weapons inspectors are (of course) a joke. I'd argue that full-scale war is the fastest and - more importantly - the most certain route to disarmament. As for Syria and Libya, well, I'm not aware that they have WMD programs or that they pose as much of a threat as Iraq does.

...[After Hussein dies] the whole country would probably descend into chaos...

Of course, if true, this is another reason that a nuclear Iraq will be a problem best dealt with before it arises. We're worried enough about rogue nukes floating around in Russia, which had a relatively harmonious transition from communism to democracy. The worry that nukes will be on the loose in the Mad Max environment that might be post-Hussein Iraq will be many times greater. Even if Qusay does successfully succeed Hussein, he will (as you say) be less able to keep the military on a leash. It's not unlikely that some of them will decide to betray him when convenient. Again, the chance of nukes geting into the hands of a non-state actor increases in this scenario as well.

You discount the just war aspect because you appear to think I'm making it from a moral standpoint, when I'm really making a legal argument. "Just" and "unjust" invasions are the difference between being hauled into international war crimes tribunals and not. It's not just an analytical framework; it's part of international law. It's also not a good idea to promote justification of pre-emptive warfare. Any state that feels threatened can attack its neighbor and feel totally justified by historical precedent.

It seems to me that the only cost will be the vilification of "warmongering" America among European elites. Think about it: exactly which states on the verge of a pre-emptive strike are currently deterred by the thought that "the US hasn't done it yet"? Argentina wasn't during the Falkland Islands affair. Iraq wasn't during the Gulf War. China is the only candidate I can think of, but I doubt that they have refrained from invading Taiwan because the US hasn't invaded Iraq.

re: little or no cost to us - I don't think that's even an issue. We know that's true.

What, then, is the cost of invading Iraq? Other than the monetary cost, the cost in soldier's lives, and the cost of stabilizing Iraq after the invasion, the only other cost I can identify is the cost of being seen as a "first strike" nation. As I said in the previous point, I am not convinced that this will redound to America's disadvantage in the eyes of the world. Left wing intellectuals will of course seize upon it as evidence of US "colonialism". Will third world nations react the same way? Perhaps there will be those among them who use this as yet another reason to condemn the "Great Satan", but their reaction will be balanced by the realization that America is not afraid to use her military might when necessary. In other words - I think it more likely that those plotting to attack will be deterred than encouraged by the fact that America is not afraid to kick ass when necessary.