Previous IFPA-Fletcher Conferences

The 33rd IFPA-Fletcher Conference
on
National Security Strategy and Policy

October 16-17, 2002
The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

New York Times on the Web, October 16, 2002

Wolfowitz Rebuts Concerns About War Against Saddam

Washington (Reuters) - Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, a leading U.S. hawk, on Wednesday rebutted critics of military action against Iraq, asserting it is better for Saddam Hussein's demise to occur "on the world's terms, not Saddam's."

While stressing that President Bush had made no decision about going to war, Wolfowitz made a vigorous case for U.S. action and insisted Washington "would not be hamstrung by the waverings of the weak or those (countries) who still hope to seek favors from the Baghdad regime."

He spoke out in a lengthy speech to a conference organized by Tufts University's Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in conjunction with the U.S. Marine Corps.

It occurred as debates raged—within the Bush administration and within the U.N. Security Council -- over a new resolution aimed at forcing Iraq to disarm.

Washington wants the United Nations to authorize the use of force if Iraq fails to comply. France and Russia are resisting this, at least until after U.N. weapons inspectors have a chance to return to Baghdad after a four-year hiatus.

Support for the French-Russian position appeared to be growing, as manifest by a U.N. debate on Wednesday in which countries warned the U.S. against military action before U.N. monitors resume their inspections.

In his speech, Wolfowitz argued that "the fundamental question is how to weigh the risks of actions versus the risks of inaction." He acknowledged there are many risks associated with the use of force against Iraq but said the suggestion that removing Saddam's regime would cause regional instability seems "exaggerated."

Wolfowitz said that sooner or later the world will have to cope with Saddam's demise.

"In the interests of minimizing whatever risks there are to larger regional stability, it would be far better for this enormous change to take place when the eyes of the world are upon Iraq and when the United States and a strong coalition are committed to seeing it through to a successful conclusion," he said.

'Sanctuary for terrorists'

"In short, to take place on the world's terms, not on Saddam's or on some fateful roll of the dice," he added.

Wolfowitz dismissed skeptics who say an attack on Iraq would disrupt the U.S. war on terror. "It is hard to see how we can expect to be successful in the long run (in the anti-terror war) if we leave Iraq as a sanctuary for terrorists and its murderous dictator in defiant safety," he said.

To those who argue the United States should wait until the threat from Saddam is imminent, Wolfowitz countered that "the notion that we can wait until the threat is imminent assumes that we will know when it is imminent."
Noting that no one knew the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were imminent before they happened, he said the world "cannot afford to wait until Saddam or a terrorist supplied by him attacks us with a chemical, biological or ... nuclear weapons to recognize the danger that we face."

Reacting to concerns that the U.S. might act alone against Saddam, Wolfowitz insisted "we do not plan to act unilaterally" and said some countries have indicated they will be part of a U.S.-led coalition with or without a U.N. resolution.

Other countries directly threatened by Iraq will not openly back the U.S. until they are certain Washington will act and "that is why American resolve and determination to act -- not to be hamstrung by the waverings of the weak or those who still hope to seek favors from the Baghdad regime -- is important to embolden others to join us," he said.

Waiting for another time, when other crises have been resolved, is not an acceptable option, Wolfowitz said.

"There will always be problems with acting at any time. But one thing we can say with certainty: the danger of acting grows with time because if military action against Saddam Hussein becomes necessary, the greatest danger will be his weapons of mass destruction."