CANBERRA, Australia--Critics of U.S. policy on Iraq have lately begun to employ the term "containment" to describe an alternative approach. That alternative essentially is to muddle along with endless further U.N. resolutions, which Iraq either ignores or partially obeys under intense pressure, with inspectors given "more time" to disarm Iraq.

It's not surprising that containment has been invoked. It's had a good diplomatic history--quite illustrious really. It described the West's successful response to the Soviet Union's expansionism after World War II and stretching into the 1950s. We all know that in the end the Soviet Union imploded. The liberal democratic values of the West won the ideological contest, and the U.S. has emerged as the one superpower. With a track record like that, why wouldn't America's opponents over Iraq want to annex "containment" to their cause?

It is, however, a false historical comparison. Worse, it completely misstates the character of the threat which the world now faces.





Moscow was "contained" because of the possession of atomic/nuclear weapons by both the West and the Soviets. The doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo delivered by containment, until the internal implosion of the old Soviet empire. The view, validly held, was that because both sides had weapons of mass destruction, the potential human cost of military action by the West and the Soviet Union at the time of Hungary in 1956, or Czechoslovakia in 1968, would have been infinitely greater than the human cost (bad though it was) in leaving dictatorial Soviet-backed regimes in power there.

Then, the potential cost of doing something was greater than the cost of doing nothing. Now, in the case of Iraq, the potential cost of doing nothing is clearly much greater than the cost of doing something.

If Iraq isn't effectively disarmed, not only could she use her chemical and biological weapons against her own people again and also other countries, but other rogue states will be encouraged to believe that they too can join the weapons of mass destruction league. Proliferation of chemical, biological and, indeed, nuclear weapons will multiply the likelihood of terrorist groups laying hands on such arms. The consequences for mankind would be horrific.

In other words doing nothing about Iraq, potentially, is much more costly than using force, if necessary, to ensure the disarmament of Iraq.

Incidentally, in the very short term, the failure of the U.N. to deal effectively with Iraq will have consequences for the world's dealings with North Korea. Can it seriously be suggested that the Security Council can discipline North Korea if it fails to discipline Iraq?





Not one person wants war. We all abhor it. Those who marched a week ago in the cities of the world do not have a mortgage on detestation of military conflict or of human suffering. They do not exclusively occupy the moral high ground. Have they seriously addressed the human suffering that could flow from the world's failure to deal once and for all with Iraq's 12-year-long defiance of the community of nations?

Are they morally comfortable with the suffering Saddam Hussein continues to inflict on Iraqi children through his corruption of the U.N.'s "oil for food" program? What do they say of the torture and arbitrary executions that are a part of everyday life in Iraq?

Military action against Iraq will involve casualties. But a powerful case can be made that the potential casualties will be much greater if the world does not act effectively and now.

A peaceful outcome in the short term, which does not imperil our longer-term security and safety, appears remote at present. It could be made less remote if the world acted with greater unity. Iraq does respond to pressure. The inspectors are in Baghdad because of the American military buildup. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have both said that. America's critics know it, too, but won't admit it. Rather, their illogical starting point is the presence in Iraq of weapons inspectors, only there because of U.S. pressure--the very pressure they have attacked!





Given past Iraqi behavior, there is a faint hope that a united expression of view from the Security Council, combined with pressure from neighboring Arab states (which carry a special responsibility), might just induce a decisive change of heart somewhere in Baghdad. But true containment of Iraq can be achieved only if the world recognizes that the challenges of today are so different from those of 50 years ago.

The nuclear balance, which through the Cold War alternately traumatized and reassured the world, has been replaced by the constant specter of weapons of mass destruction in the hands not only of more states but also terrorists operating without constraint in a borderless world. That is what is at stake in containing Iraq. The cost of doing nothing is infinitely greater than the cost of acting.

Mr. Howard is the prime minister of Australia.

Who posted this bit of crap?

Mr. Howard presents some excellent arguments. It's a good article.

Containing Saddam is only possible in one way. See cartoon.

Buggy little article.

Fatigued, and redundant . Habitual construction mannerisms affiliate this article to similar fallacies saturating the LA indymedia public arena. When will these indiscreet mythmaker’s start a more sophisticated persuasion campaign?

“PM Howard” writes and thinks like so many before him that I have to question if he/ it is a team of dullards. I still wait for some creativity to occur, but I imagine that will not come from coneheads who probably spent too many college hours in marketing and business seminars.