Bell Curve The Law Talking Guy Raised by Republicans U.S. West
Well, he's kind of had it in for me ever since I accidentally ran over his dog. Actually, replace "accidentally" with "repeatedly," and replace "dog" with "son."

Friday, June 18, 2004

Iraq, the Axis of Evil, and WMD Proliferation

One of the primary justifications for invading Iraq was that Iraq was stockpiling nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons (WMDs) and was willing to use them against the United States. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, it has become increasingly apparent that Iraq did not in fact have any WMD stockpiles. Unphased, the Bush administration (and its supporters) points to Lybia’s abandonment of its WMD programs as evidence that the invasion of Iraq has convinced states to abandon their WMD programs. However, two other cases seem to suggest the opposite effect. Both Iran and North Korea seem to have accelerated their WMD programs since the invasion of Iraq. Why do we observe the two different responses?

I believe two factors are at work: First, how advanced was the WMD program? How close to a deployable weapon has the program gotten at the time of the invasion of Iraq? Second, how belligerent do US intentions towards the proliferating state appear to be? How aggressive is the proliferating state’s foreign policy?

North Korea:
North Korea has several nuclear weapons right now. There is little serious talk (I hope) of a US invasion of North Korea. If the US were to invade North Korea, they would risk a nuclear attack on either South Korea or Japan (what’s Japanese for “why do they have to nuke us every time?”). Despite N. Korea’s being on the “Axis of Evil” and the presence of tens of thousands of US troops right on the N. Korean border, the US did not invade. Instead, the US is actually transferring troops out of the Korean area to Iraq. The North Korean regime could be forgiven for thinking that it was their nuclear capability that has saved them.

Iran: Iran began developing its WMD program during its war with Iraq. In that war, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Based solely on the Iraqi threat, Iran would be foolish NOT to develop WMDs of its own. Iran’s nuclear program is already at the stage of uranium enrichment. While the Iraqi threat is gone, the US has troops on both its eastern and western borders and naval and air forces in the Persian Gulf to the South. Finally, the US President has declared Iran to be an “evil” regime. From an Iranian point of view, the threat of US invasion must loom very large indeed. Iran has a sufficient conventional military capability to deter the US so long as its military is bogged down in Iraq. However, the US military may expand or the situation in Iraq may change. For all these reasons, Iranian military planners have strong incentives to accelerate their nuclear program in an effort to establish their own strategic deterrent before the US gets around to the next country on the “Axis of Evil.”

Libya: Libya’s WMD programs were not very far advanced. Libya seems to have developed some chemical weapons. But Libya was years and years away from a usable nuclear weapon. Given Libya’s geography (a populated coastline with thousands of square miles of uninhabited desert behind it), chemical weapons might not be all that useful. Libyan weather conditions along the coast might not be conducive to the use of chemical weapons to repel an amphibious invasion. Nuclear weapons might deter such an invasion (nukes work against naval targets better than chemical weapons). Also, Libyan relations with the West have been gradually improving for years. Libya’s Qadafi has been pushing a new strategy of trade and economic engagement centered on the creation of a pan-African trading bloc (something the US should reward). The diplomatic developments point to possible improvements between the US and Libya. To sum up, Libya’s WMD program was years away from being able to deter a US invasion while the payoffs for cooperation appeared likely.

No comments: