Bulletin de liaison et d'information - Institut kurde de Paris

Revue de Presse-Press Review-Berhevoka Çapê-Rivista Stampa-Dentro de la.Prensa-Basm Özeti
N
o
N
1ü
.Q
ọ..
C,)
o o-
Go to war with Iraq?
.Congress .weighs .costs
8 questions shape debate on resolution
By David Von Drehle
The WIshiugton Post
WASHINGTON: Congress plans this
week to debate a joint resolution that
would give President George W. Bush
broad powers to disarm Iraq, including
the authority toinvade the country and
depose President Saddam Hussein.
The resolution is expected to PliSS
easily, in part because leading Democrats
want to get the issue of war behind
them, and in part because there is widespread
agreement on Capitol Hill that
Saddam must be dealt with. , '
"We begin with the common belief
that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the
Middle East," said Senator Carl Levin,
Democrat of Michigan, chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
There is also general agreement that,
if it comes to war, the United States
would win.
But beyond this first level of agreement
lie major disputes over important
questions - about alternatives to war,
timing and, most of all, outcomes.
Although these questions might not be
answerable without a crystal ball - experts
have debated them without reaching
consensus incongressional hearings,
op-ed and journal articles - they frame
the risks and the as- , '
sumptions of the U.S.
approach.
Here are eight, of
the most important: .
1. Can Saddam
be "contained"
and "deterred"?
During the Cold
War, the United
States faced an enemy armed with thousands
of high-yield bombs mounted on
sophisticated missiles and avoided a direct
military confrontation.
How? By "containing" the enemy -
that is, trying to prevent Communist expansion
,- and "deterring" attacks with
threats of apocalyptic retaliation.
Some experts believe this strategy,
applied aggressively, can work with
Iraq. Containment and deterrence are
the U.S. policy for dealing with Iran,
which is widely believed to be more ad-'
, vanced in nuclear capability and deeply
involved in supporting terrorists. '
Many people - among them President
Bush - 'believe deterrence is no
longer enough after Sept. II, 2001, not
when weaponsmight be delivered
secretly to fanatics willing to vaporize
themselves in an ;lttack. Senator John
Warner, Republican of Virginia, put it
this way: "The concept of deterrence
that served us well in the 20th centu,ry
~ changed" Ao