Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on preemptive

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on preemptive strikes (reporter's question included for context):

Q: Okay, skip the international law part. What makes a preemptive strike okay, acceptable?

Rumsfeld: Well, I would make the case that there are a whole series of things that ought to be looked at, and that there isn't a single one that's determinative, and that what one would have to do is to evaluate those and weigh them.

And the construct I would suggest would be what are the benefits -- what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting against the moon would be that no one could say that you acted; they would say, "Isn't that good, you didn't do anything against the moon." The other side of the coin, of not acting against the moon in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you'd then suffered a serious loss and you're sorry after that's over. And in weighing the things, you have to make a judgment; net, do you think that you're acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterized -- X numbers of people dying, innocent people -- and it's that kind of an evaluation one would have to make.

Rumsfeld was worried that the question would be about Iraq so he used the moon instead. So, despite the Secretary's objections, let's apply his construct to Iraq. Would the U.S. avoid more innocent deaths (both American and Iraqi) by acting than by not acting? That's the crux of the issue. If Saddam wasn't developing weapons of mass destruction and didn't have a history of using them on enemies and his own people and wasn't allowing al-Qaeda members to currently stay in Iraq (Rumsfeld calls this "a fact") then destroying his government and liberating Iraq wouldn't be the right course of action. If Saddam weren't doing the nasty things he's doing, then he wouldn't be a threat to the U.S. and wouldn't deserve a nastier version of Desert Storm. But we know Saddam's history with chemical weapons. He used them in the Iraq-Iran war and he used them on Kurds. We know he's developing a nuclear weapon. We know Saddam is supporting Palestinian homicide bombers; and if al-Qaeda is in Iraq, then they're there with permission of Saddam. Rumsfeld said, "Well, in a vicious, repressive dictatorship that has -- exercises near-total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country." So, Saddam has access to WMD, the desire to build even greater weapons, the will the use them; and he is allowing members of a vicious terrorist group safe-haven in his country.

If no U.S. military action occurred, what could be the result? A continued Saddam-led Iraq would, in time, build a nuclear bomb. There's no question. With a nuke at hand, what would Saddam do with it? He could wave it around and threaten countries in the Arab world to do his bidding. He could even become the leader of the Arab world with the strength and guts to challenge the West. It could turn into a real Clash of Civilizations. Or he could allow al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group to take the weapon or its technology and let them attack the West. There's even the possibility that Saddam could try his best to guard the secret to his newfound political power, yet fail to protect the knowledge and materials from terrorist groups. In the end, there's a good chance that anti-West terrorist groups would end up with a nuclear weapon or the ability to build their own.

With such knowledge in terrorists' hands, any city on the planet would be in danger of being vaporized. Suppose Seattle was the unfortunate target, and it was learned that the nuclear technology came from Iraq. The President would ask Congress for a declaration of war, and it would be quickly given. There would be war in Iraq with an American public so angry they wouldn't care how many Iraqi civilians died. Many would call for Iraq to be turned into a sea of radioactive glass. There would be no mercy and Iraq would be destroyed.

Imagining this scenario of inaction, let's count the bodies. Millions dead in Seattle. Millions dead in Iraq. U.S. and Iraqi soldiers killed. All because Saddam was allowed to continue building WMD.

Now, if the U.S. attacks Saddam it could be quick and decisive. The biggest numbers I've seen have a potential U.S. force of 200,000 attacking Iraq. It could be less if an Afghanistan-style operation took place. It certainly would be less than the 500,000 troops of Desert Storm and significantly smaller than battles in World War II and Korea. With smart weapons and our highly trained military, Iraqi civilians would get killed--that's a tragedy of war--but they would be kept to a minimum. Troops on both sides would die.

With Saddam defeated, Iraq would start on its path to freedom. It wouldn't be guaranteed, and it certainly would be rocky (see Afghanistan). The U.N. sanctions would be lifted and Iraqis could start trading with the rest of the world.

Examining a scenario of action, we see that troops on both side were killed along with Iraqi civilian casualties. What we wouldn't see is the millions of corpses from a destroyed American city along with the millions of Iraqis who died in the U.S. ruthless counterstrike.

Would attacking Iraq be as clean cut as my thought experiment? No, the drama of real life always tosses in an unknown factor that could alter perceptions and assumptions. Nevertheless, these scenarios of inaction and action provide a reasonable place for continued discussion.

DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Pace

August 20, 2002