Download Locations:
Summary:
In his 2002 and 2003 State of the Union messages, President Bush characterized Iraq as a grave potential threat to the United States because of its refusal to abandon its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs as required by U.N. Security Council resolutions and the potential for it to transfer WMD to terrorist groups. Since September 2002, the President has said that unless Iraq fully disarms in cooperation with United Nations weapons inspectors, the United States would lead a coalition to achieve that disarmament militarily. U.S. officials have made clear that this would include the ouster of Iraq's President Saddam Hussein's regime. Since February 2003, the Administration has stressed that regime change through U.S.-led military action would yield benefits beyond disarmament, including liberation from an oppressive regime for the Iraqi people and enhancement of the prospects for peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. The goal of regime change in Iraq has been declared U.S. policy since November 1998. Even before then, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam had been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991. These efforts primarily involved U.S. backing for opposition groups inside and outside Iraq, some of which are now receiving increased U.S. political and financial support and military training. According to several experts, past efforts to change the regime floundered because of limited U.S. commitment, disorganization of the Iraqi opposition, and the efficiency and ruthlessness of Iraq's several overlapping intelligence and security forces. Currently, Iraq's exiled opposition are stepping up their coordination, and in some cases their military preparations, to be in position to benefit politically from the collapse of the regime that is expected to result from U.S. military action. Previous U.S. administrations ruled out major U.S. military action to change Iraq's regime, believing such action would be costly, risky, and not necessarily justified by the level of Iraq's lack of compliance on WMD disarmament. Opponents of military action maintain that there is insufficient international support for unilateral U.S. military action to change Iraq's regime, that doing so could destabilize the Middle East and hinder the broader war on terrorism, and that action could lead to numerous U.S. casualties and a long-term presence in Iraq which could subject U.S. occupation forces to years of attacks by feuding Iraqi factions and remnants of Iraq's military. Others believe that the threat from Saddam's regime is manageable through means currently in place, such as containment, especially now that Iraq is allowing access to all sites by U.N. weapons inspectors. Countries that oppose the U.S. position cite briefings from chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to argue that the inspections process is working and could result in disarmament of Iraq, without war. This report will be updated as warranted by major developments.
