Operation Iraqi Freedom and WMD: Implications
for Global Politics 

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal * 

he Bush Administration holds a strong argument to justify the United States’ preventive war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The basic supporting proposition for Operation Iraqi Freedom was that Baghdad possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).[1] Washington and its allies presuppose that coupling of WMD and terrorism would be inevitable.[2] The plea of war, however, is debatable.[3] With the passage of time, the opposition to the US military invasion in Iraq has been growing. It is argued that this invasion has other objectives instead of eliminating terrorists’ safe hideouts or breeding grounds and WMD.[4] Importantly, the continuous vigorous American efforts since March 2003 to find Iraq’s alleged WMD have produced no results. In January 2004, David Kay, as head of the group surveying Iraq for the evidence of WMD, gave up the search and declared that Iraq did not possess WMD.[5] Subsequently, in October 2004 another US weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer issued a 1,500-page report on the absence of WMD, which President Bush had used as a major justification for war against Saddam Hussein.

The controversial debate over determinants of Operation Iraqi Freedom further deepened, when President George W. Bush himself agreed that Iraq did not have the weapons that the US and its’ allies intelligence agencies believed were there. On 8 October 2004 President Bush acknowledged that pre-war intelligence claiming Iraq had WMD was "wrong", but said his decision to invade Iraq was right.[6] This statement substantiated what had already been referred to by many analysts, i.e. Operation Iraqi Freedom had a different purpose to serve, instead of a mere curbing the proliferation of WMD. For instance, one report suggests that barely five hours after the Pentagon building itself was hit on 11 September 2001 and having been told of Al-Qaeda’s likely culpability, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld requested plans for striking Iraq. His Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, made the case for Iraq to be an early target, even before Afghanistan.[7] Then Secretary of the Treasury Paul O Neill recounted his reaction to Wolfowitz’s argument at a meeting of the National Security Council on 13 September 2001: “I thought what Wolfowitz was asserting about Iraq was a reach, and I think others in the room did too. It was like changing the subject… I was mystified. It’s like a bookbinder accidentally dropping a chapter from one book into the middle of another one. The chapter is coherent, in its way, but it doesn’t seem to fit in this book.”[8]  These pieces of information authenticate the claims of a few opponents of war in Iraq, who charge that the real purposes of the war were to support Israel[9], control oil markets and even look after some of the leading companies associated with the Bush Administration, such as Haliburton.[10] 

The important factor in this fiasco is that no link has yet been found between Baghdad's assertively secular regime and radical Islamist terrorists—al-Qaeda. Links between Baghdad and al-Qaeda are unproven and inherently unbelievable. In February 2003, Osama Bin Laden broadcast denounced Saddam Hussein as a “socialist and an infidel”, even while urging that any American invasion of Iraq be opposed, while senior al-Qaeda figures in captivity denied that there had ever been consideration of joint operations.[11] Jeffrey Record argued, “ Take Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Ladan’s al- Qaeda as examples. The former was a secular, neo-Stalinst police state with traditional imperial ambitions, whereas the latter remains a fanatically anti-secular, elusive non-state actor with secret cells in reportedly 60 countries. Osama and Saddam were oil and water.”[12]  On October 4, 2004 the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, also admitted that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.[13] In addition, the democracy which replaces autocratic regime would presumably resemble that of Afghanistan — a ramshackle coalition of ethnic groups and warlords, utterly dependent on US military power and utterly subservient to US (and Israeli) wishes.

The majority of Muslims believed that the Bush Administration decided to crush another middle-sized Muslim State at minimal military cost. The defeat of Saddam Hussein would terrorize all the Muslim regimes. Consequently, they would submit to the demands of the Washington without any resistance. For example, Iran on its part can either be frightened into abandoning both its nuclear programme and its support for the Palestinians, or see its nuclear facilities destroyed by bombardment.[14] According to Melvyn P. Leffler, in the Muslim world substantial majorities think the US is overreacting to the terrorist threat and that Americans seek to dominate the world. He added, “Most worrisome of all is the reaction among ‘friendly’ Muslim nations: 59 percent of Turks, 36 percent of Pakistanis, 27 percent of Moroccans, and 24 percent of Jordanians say that suicide bombing against Americans and Westerners are justified in Iraq.”[15] The idea, in other words, is to scare these states not only into helping with the hunt for al-Qaeda, but into capitulating to the US, and more important, Israeli agenda in the Middle East.[16] Therefore, the breadth and depth of the current anti-Americanism are unprecedented in Muslim world.

The analysts opine that if President Bush's vision of a quick military victory, a benign and untroubled occupation, and the quick construction of a democratic Iraq is correct, then the rules and structures of the international system will be completely re-written in favour of a US-centric system. According to the realist school of thought and cyclical theory, these things are not possible. Importantly, the current trends are against the perceptions of the American Neo-Cons. The US military invasion in Iraq has significant repercussions. Iraq war is not only destructive for international order, or arrogant denial of the great majority of the international community, but also contrary to some of the basic needs of the war against terrorism, i.e. the sincere support of Muslims in the international war against terrorism in particular, and the international community’s consensus/collective approach to combat terrorism in general. Moreover, the magnitude and likely duration of the US military presence in Iraq has also significantly reduced Washington’s ability to respond elsewhere militarily.[17]

Before a detailed examination of the ramifications of Operation Iraqi Freedom is undertaken, it seems appropriate to briefly identify the dangerous trends in terrorism and of the question why the US national security agenda gives priority to combating terrorism. The study is divided into two parts. The first section deals with the dangerous trends in terrorism and the possibility of the use of WMD by terrorists. The second part contains a discussion of the Operation’s implications for the global politics.  

Dangerous Trends in Terrorism

The trends in terrorism are not static and have been changing with the passage of time. In the present age, we are experiencing an alarming change in these trends. New adversaries, new motivations and new rationales, which have emerged in recent years, can couple with today’s increased opportunities and capabilities to launch terrorism on a trajectory towards higher levels of lethality, mass destruction and mass killing, and to challenge the conventional knowledge about it. In addition, the current wave of international terrorism, characterized by unpredictable and unprecedented threats from non-state actors, is a complex puzzle. Today, terrorist activities not only begin and end in a single country, but may also cross national borders. At the start of the 21^st century, most terrorists targeted citizens and property in external countries, and because terrorist acts are spread throughout the globe, the risks are widespread.[18] Since the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the US national security agenda gives high priority to combating terrorism. It is because of the dangerous trends in terrorism that harm its national interests. Following are some of the important trends:  

1. Terrorist groups are operating globally as part of a worldwide network. They are integrated by transnational non-state organizations through global networks of terrorist cells located in many countries, involving unprecedented levels of communication and coordination.   

2. Modern terrorism is very lethal. Terrorists now have shifted their tactics from theatrical violent acts seeking to alarm for sake of publicity to the purposeful destruction of a target populated entirely by civilian non-combatants, to kill as many people as possible for the purpose of instilling fear in the public. They have used chemical and biological agents for their nefarious acts. There is also a fear that terrorists might one-day use nuclear weapons.

3. The average number of casualties per terrorist incidents is increasing. Nearly 3000 people were killed as a result of September 11, 2001 attack.

4. The states (axis of evil) could use terrorist groups as proxies in their own fights. The support of states enhances the reach and power of terrorist groups.

5. Increasing proportion of cross-international border terrorists attacks were/are aimed at the American facilities or citizens

WMD Terrorism: Myth or Reality

The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have raised dramatically the concerns about the potential for WMD terrorism. The consequences of an act of WMD terrorism would be devastating in many respects — human, social, psychological, economic, and political. Even before 11 September the then US President Bill Clinton stated in January 1999, that the US would be subject to a terrorist attack—involving chemical or biological weapons within the next few years.[19] Is it possible? How did the terrorist organisations manufacture or acquire WMD? Realistically, it seems possible that the terrorists would use WMD for their nefarious designs. A new breed of terrorists — including ad hoc groups motivated by religious conviction or revenge, violent right-wing extremists, and apocalyptic and millenarian cults, appears more likely than the terrorists of the past to commit acts of extreme violence. The overriding religious belief in Armageddon establishes a strong motive for some cults to use the WMD weapons. Jessica Stern argued: 

Religiously motivated terrorists might decide to use weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological agents, in the belief that they were emulating God. The fifth plague with which God punishes the Pharaoh in the story of the Israelites’ Exodus from Egypt is murrain, a group of cattle diseases that includes anthrax. In I Samuel 5: 9, God turns against the Philistines with a very great destruction, killing them with a pestilence that produces Emerods in secret parts…Some terrorists might feel they were following God’s example by employing these agents.[20]  

The new trends in terrorism indicate that WMD suit terrorists’ strategy, i.e. to cause a large number of indiscriminate casualties. The usage of WMD not only multitudinously increases the lethality of the terrorists’ acts, but the government of a state attacked with such weapons would have difficulty in controlling panic. Because chemical and biological weapons are silent killers, an attack could occur at any time without warning. Importantly, in recent years terrorists have been acquiring crude chemical and biological agents, and some have plotted or threatened to use them. For example, Christian Patriots had shown interests in biological weapons. The biological agents are deadly weapons. For example, 100 kilograms of anthrax could kill up to three million people if dispersed under optimal conditions.[21] In May 1995, just six weeks after the Aum Shinrikiyo incident in Tokyo, Larry Wayne Harris, former member of neo-Nazi organizations, bought three vials of yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes bubonic plague. In addition, there are reports, which indicate that terrorist organizations have been trying to get nuclear devices for their terrorist acts. According to American findings, Osama bin Laden had stated that acquiring nuclear weapons was a “religious duty” and the International Atomic Energy Agency had concluded that al Qaeda was “actively seeking” an atomic bomb. Testimony by Jamal Ahmad al-Fadl, a former bin Laden associate, in the trial of those convicted in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, recounted al-Fadl's extensive but unsuccessful efforts to acquire enriched uranium for al Qaeda.[22]

The terrorist organizations might acquire WMD in various ways. It is an open secret that the WMD weapons’ components and know-how are available in the black market. Importantly, unlike nuclear weapons, the materials and tools required to create biological warfare agents are easily accessible and cheap. Therefore, biological and chemical weapons are often referred to as the poor man’s nuclear bomb. A state of the art biological laboratory could be built and made operational with as little as $10,000 worth off-the-shelf equipment and could be housed in a small room.[23] In addition, hundreds of tons of nuclear material, the essential ingredients of nuclear weapons, are stored at vulnerable sites throughout the former Soviet Union, guarded only by underpaid, hungry, and disheartened people. At least eight thefts of materials (weapons-usable) that could be used to make nuclear weapons have been confirmed.[24] In addition to Russian sources the Americans have been expressing great concern over Pakistan’s nuclear programme. Moreover, there are many recorded cases of theft of medical isotopes and other sources of radiation. These incidents are often overlooked because radioisotopes cannot be used to make detonable nuclear bombs. But terrorists could use them to draw attention to their cause, to wreak havoc, and to terrorise civilians.

The important question is whether terrorist organizations could be capable of using WMD accurately, especially nuclear weapons. The published literature about these weapons reveals that it is easy to use chemicals and biological agents to poison agricultural commodities, infect livestock, or gas passengers on trains or planes. It is generally viewed that nuclear weapons are extremely difficult to manufacture. It seems appropriate here that distinction must be drawn between the kind of military weapons, which states strive to develop and the rougher types of devices, which terrorists would be satisfied with. A physics PhD student could design a crude nuclear device, and the terrorists’ requirement is the radiological bomb, in which radioactive materials are packed around a conventional bomb and an incendiary material. With this type of weapon the explosion leads to a fireball, shooting the radioactive material up into the air, which then falls back to earth, scattering over a wide area. The primary purpose of such weapons is to spread radioactive contamination rather than cause casualties through blast effects.[25]

The recent year’s terrorist record indicates that the possibility of using biological and chemical weapons is more than the use of nuclear weapons. The reason being that the technological problems associated with manufacturing nuclear weapons. In fact, the availability of pertinent material and the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons are easy as compare to nuclear weapons. More precisely, the general perception is that the acquisition of enriched uranium or plutonium is difficult because the nuclear facilities are well guarded. Though it would be difficult for the terrorists to acquire and use nuclear weapons but such a use is plausible. The use of nuclear weapons by terrorists cannot be ruled out in totality in future terrorist acts, because of state sponsored terrorism. Paul Wilkinson argued that “many terrorists movements are directly encouraged, sponsored and aided by regimes in order to weaken or subvert rival states.”[26] It follows from these connections that the pro-terrorist states assist the terrorist organizations by providing nuclear radioactive material. Moreover, the emergence of a black market in nuclear materials makes clear that the risk of nuclear terrorism is growing. For example, three cases of seizing of plutonium and one of highly enriched uranium (HEU) in Germany took place during the summer of 1993, showing the emergence of a black market in nuclear materials being smuggled out of the former Soviet Union.[27] How much HEU is needed to make a nuclear bomb? A research team at the University of California found that three kilograms would be sufficient. By means of computer modeling of a simple fission weapon design, they found a nuclear yield equivalent to more than 100 tons of high explosives could be achieved with only one kilogram of HEU and a yield of half that of the Hiroshima bomb with five kilograms.[28]

Nuclear terrorism could take many forms, any one of which would be a disaster by any measure. The following are some of the methods, which the terrorists might adopt. 

Obtaining the Fissile Material to Make a Dirty Bomb

The most accessible nuclear device for any terrorist would be a radiological dispersion bomb (RDDs) also called Dirty Bomb. It’s manufacture and use is simple and would be an effective weapon of terror because severe disruption would result from the widespread fear of radioactive contamination and long-term health affects. A dirty bomb consists of waste by-product from nuclear reactors wrapped in conventional explosives, which upon detonation would spew deadly radioactive particles into the environment. Thereby augmenting the injury and property damage caused by the explosion. The capability of an RDD to cause significant harm is largely dependent on the type of radioactive material used and the means used to disperse it. Other important variables include location of the device and prevailing weather conditions.

A dirty bomb is an expedient weapon, in that radioactive waste material is relatively easy to obtain. Radioactive materials that could be employed in RDDs range from radiation sources used in medicine or industry to spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants. Hence radioactive waste is widely found throughout the world and in general is not as well guarded as actual nuclear weapons. For instance, in the US, radioactive waste is located at more than 70 commercial nuclear power sites.[29] In addition, it is an open secret that in the Russian Federation security for nuclear waste is especially poor. There have been incidents of theft regarding nuclear radioactive material missing from the Russian nuclear facilities.[30] 

Vulnerability of Nuclear Facility

A terrorist attack on a commercial nuclear power plant with a commercial jet or heavy munitions could have an effect similar to a radiological bomb, and cause far greater casualties. If such an attack were to cause either a meltdown of the reactor core (similar to the Chernobyl disaster), or a dispersal of the spent fuel waste on the site, extensive casualties could be expected. In such a case the power plant would be the source of the radiological contamination, and the plane or armament would be the explosive mechanism for spreading lethal radiation over large areas.

Theft of an Intact Bomb

The possibility that terrorists could obtain an actual atomic device is very difficult, but not inevitable as nuclear weapon states manufacture tactical nuclear weapons. The weapon is small and can be easily carried. However, bomb-grade nuclear fissile material (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) is relatively heavily guarded in most, if not all, nuclear weapon states. Although generally better secured than nuclear materials, there is still a possibility that nuclear weapons could be stolen by terrorists. In 1986, the NCI\SUNY International Task Force on the Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism raised concerns about the vulnerability of tactical nuclear weapons to theft. Since the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and Russia have removed nearly all their tactical nuclear weapons from overseas deployment. However, there has been continued speculation that some number of Soviet "suitcase bombs" (small one-kiloton portable nuclear weapons made by the Soviet Union in the 1970s) remain unaccounted. There have been conflicting reports about whether all of these weapons are accounted for, and some concern that such weapons may have been sold by profiteers in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse in the 1990s.[31] Moreover, security weaknesses have been identified at nuclear weapons laboratories and other installations in nuclear weapon states. 

Implications for Global Politics

Operation Iraqi Freedom has significant impact on global politics in general and Middle East in particular. The Neo-Cons around Mr. Bush have been calling for regime changes in Syria, Iran and even Sudan. It reveals that risk exists for further US interventions before the chaos and anarchy created in Iraq and Afghanistan could be resolved. The US strategy to eliminate terrorism indicates that it is entirely relying on military solutions and undermining political options. The military campaign against Afghanistan and Iraq manifest that military strategy is a short-term solution. More precisely, toppling regimes in Kabul and Baghdad, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, respectively by war did not end the terrorists’ nexus. The durability and sustainability of a victory against terrorism requires a political strategy. Michael Mousseau argued, “To win the war against terror, the US and its allies must have both a military strategy and a political strategy. Achieving a political victory requires an understanding of the social basis of terror—that is, the values and beliefs that legitimize the use of extreme and indiscriminate violence against the civilian population of out-groups.”[32] Audrey Kurth Cronin has observed that “the US response to this reality (terrorism) has been reactive and anachronistic.” He added, “the combined focus of the US on the state-centric threats and its attempt to cast twenty-firstcentury terrorism into familiar strategic terms avoids and often undermines effective responses to non-state phenomenon.”[33]     

The following are some of the important implications.   

Increasing Terrorism 

In November 1983, the US removed Iraq from the list of nations that support international terrorism and Donald Rumsfeld, as a special representative of the then President Ronald Reagan, personally conveyed this good news to Saddam Hussein.[34] After meeting with the Iraqi dictator Rumsfeld cabled Washington that his meeting marked a positive milestone in the development of US-Iraqi relations and will prove to be of wider benefit to the US posture in the region.[35] In fact, the former USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic Revolution in Iran in late 1970s forced the US led West to seek good relations with Iraq, and, in doing so, showed no inclination to respond to evidence of Iraqi WMD. Iraq’s aggression against Iran was not deplored. The termination of Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), however, eroded Saddam Hussein’s relevance in the US Middle East policy. In August 1990 Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait provided an opportunity for the US to bring remarkable might of modern military technology to bear on Iraq. Since then Iraq is a state of concern or a rogue state or member of the axis of evil in the US strategic calculation. Therefore, a policy of containment with significant coercive element was adopted against Iraq during 1990s. The 9/11 terrorist attack further worsened Iraq position. The Bush administration accused Saddam Hussein of lending support to international terrorism.[36] Ironically, the US de-classified reports about the 9/11 reveal that Baghdad was not at all involved with 9/11 and did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Despite it, the Bush administration unleashed America's military might against Iraq alleging Baghdad as being the breeding ground for terrorists. Moreover, there is no credible connection between Baghdad and al Qaeda, but in the Neo-Cons mind the two are one; and thus, President Bush promised the nation, "The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed".

Saddam Hussein’s entire set up was expelled in 2003. The leading figures of his regime were either killed or arrested. Saddam Hussein himself is in the custody of coalition forces in Iraq. What is its impact on the terrorism?    Realistically, Operation Iraqi Freedom in addition to other factors has been increasing both amateur and organized terrorism. A senior American counterintelligence official told The New York Times, “an American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and other groups," "And it is a very effective tool." In a March 2004 Pew survey of European and Middle Eastern countries, a majority in seven of the eight nations surveyed believed U.S. and British leaders lied about the Iraq war.[37] According to them there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Therefore, their governments should not support the US in its military campaign in Iraq. The denial of Operation Iraq Freedom by the public was manifested in the last Spanish elections—defeat of pro-US Spanish political party in the election. It seems that the Spanish voters believed their government's close cooperation with the United States, and specifically with the Bush administration in Iraq, had brought the wrath of the terrorist organization on them. They concluded that possible way to avoid future terrorist attacks was to choose a government that would withdraw from Iraq and distance itself from the United States.

            The terrorist attack in Madrid and its shocking impact on the Spanish elections in March 2004 had brought the United States and Europe to the edge of the abyss. There is no denying that Al Qaeda (provided it was involved) had struck a strategic and not merely a tactical blow. To murder and terrorize people is one thing, but to unseat a pro-U.S. government in a nation that was a linchpin of America's alliance with the so-called New Europe -- that is Al Qaeda's most significant geopolitical success since 11 September 2001. To be precise, baby Al Qaedas are being spawned in new regions of the world, and a new generation of terrorists is stepping up to take the place of those killed in Afghanistan or detained at Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, former national security advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright had expressed their fears that war of choice against Iraq would weaken the war of necessity against Al-Qaeda by distracting America’s strategic attention to Iraq, gobbling up money and resources better applied to homeland defense.[38] European Commission President Romano Prodi commented in the wake of the Madrid attacks: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Terrorism, he said, "is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." In sum, the Operation Iraqi freedom had negative impact on the war on terrorism.

Increasing Instability in the Middle East

The US military campaign against Iraq has initiated a process of instability in Middle East. The Iraqis’ have started asymmetrical warfare against the coalition forces in the occupied Iraq.  The rising number of casualties among coalition forces and civilian is not in the interest of the US. In short, the instability in Iraq would have a spill over effect on the neighboring states in particular and on the region in general.  Moreover, it is obvious that hawks in the Bush administration believe that Iraq is the beginning, not the end. It is because Iraq was not the only country in the Middle East to seek WMD. Many of its neighbors such as Iran, Syria, Israel, and Egypt are believed to have different kinds of WMD. Also, Iraq was not the only Middle Eastern to use chemical weapons. Egypt used them its war in Yemen in the early 1960s and Libya used them in the war in Chad several years latter.[39]  Iraq is the start of a plan to change all the regimes (viewed as hostile to the US interests) in the Middle East. If a tyrant like Saddam can be brought down, others are going to begin to think and act to bring down the tyrants that are inflicting them and the U.S. troops would be there to help in these transformations, operating from the new, more secure bases in Iraq. The Libyans were quick in assessing the changed environment in the Middle East. In November 2003, Moammar Gadhafi renounced Libya’s WMD programme and opened his country's weapons laboratories to international inspection. The Libyan government gave documents to the U.S. officials in order to satisfy their concerns.

            The Iraqi resistance manifests that common Arab or the mass movements in the Arab world during the war were anti-American, not pro-democracy. They did not support the US led forces in Iraq. In fact, Arab citizens were inflamed over what they consider the brutal military assaults of Ariel Sharon's government against unarmed Palestinians. Thus, they excuse suicide bombers and consider American troops as Israeli reinforcements, not Iraq's liberators. It is undeniable fact that the “Fatwahs’ were already flowing from mainstream clerics urging all Muslims to resist the U.S. invasion. The Middle East experts opine that governments may indeed fall, but it may be the rulers in Jordan that are threatened, not the dictatorship in Syria or revolutionary leadership in Iran. Hence, the US unilateralism in its foreign policy and preemption in its security policy have profoundly affected Middle East. Gabriel Kolko argued, “Geopolitically, the consummately ambitious American plan for restructuring the Middle East’s politics, making it more congenial to itself as well as to Israel, is very likely to fail. Arab opinion—even among those once friendly to the US—was overwhelmingly anti-war and passionately  angry, a  fact  that  will  only   increase  terrorism’s appeals  and  its dangers to Americans and their allies. The vast majority of Arabs believe that the outcome of war on Iraq will be instability for the entire region.”[40] Thus, it seems that instead of stability, instability would prevail in the Middle East.  

Weakening of International Institutions

Since the end of First World War the collective security concept had gained importance in the US foreign policy. Agreed that sometimes the American presidents supported it theoretically only, but they were not so scornful of world opinion. For example, late President, Truman had the United Nations with him in the Korean War, Kennedy had the Organization of American States backing his blockade of Cuba. Former President Bill Clinton had NATO on his side in the war in Kosovo. While on the contrary, President Bush had gone almost alone in case of Iraq in 2003. Neither United Nations nor NATO approved the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The present US strategy indicates that there is a major shift in the US foreign and national security policy strategy. Instead of relying on traditional US alliance system, once considered force multiplier, the Bush administration sees alliances or UN arrangements based on collective security principles as deadweight anchors that effectively slow US response time to urgent challenges and reduce US freedom of movement in the international arena in the current environment. Nevertheless, Bush administration’s penchant for unilateralist action has led to increasingly frequent arguments that UN security system is in fast decline, if not already dead. It is antithesis to the visionary occurrence in the international system in the aftermath of 1991 Gulf War. The New World Order to be created by the Gulf War was to be a world order centered on the United Nations; so if global solutions to a security problem were needed, they would begin to be found at the United Nations.[41] The Operation Iraq Freedom, however, deny this process.   

The international public opinion, therefore, worries more about the misuse of U.S. power than about Saddam Hussein. Of the one hundred and ninety six countries in the world, only twenty or thirty governments support the war. The overwhelming majorities (common man) in almost all these nations opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom. If the war goes well, world publics may fear emboldened, post-war US intentions, even more.  The post war intentions become obvious with the US increase in defense budget, planning to spend $2,100 billion on the military from 2003 to 2008. Power has been defined in terms of military might, not as neo-liberalism advocates, in terms of the promotion of high ideals, such as free trade and free governments to secure a democratic peace. The Bush Doctrine seems likely to generate exactly the anti-US coalitions that it was designed to discourage. The anti-US coalition could divide the world into hostile camps, which would be identical to the Cold War strategic competition and negation of collective security approach for constituting and sustaining international peace. 

Proliferation of WMD

On 15 July 1999, the Rumsfeld Commission in its report unanimously concluded that concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles, with biological or nuclear payloads, pose a growing threat to the US, its deployed forces and to its friends and allies. These newer perceived developing threats in North Korea, Iran and Iraq are in addition to those still posed by the existing ballistic missile arsenals of Russia and China, nations with which the US is not now in conflict but which remain in uncertain transitions.[42] President Bush stated that, for countries of concern, “terror and blackmail are a way of life.” He added “they seek” missiles armed with “weapons of mass destruction to keep the US and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world”.[43] On 1 February 2001, the US CIA Director George Tenet argued in his report, “It is true that we are the most powerful nation of the world and there is no doubt that we will be threatened by nations that do not share our interests, values, and beliefs.”[44] On 18 February 2002 President George W. Bush while discussing his axis of evil policy, at a news conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Takoyo, said, “all options on the table…. The leaders I've talked to fully understand, exactly, what needs to happen... We're going to seize the moment, and do it."[45] Are Iran, Iraq and North Korea rogue states or do they form an Axis of Evil? Is possession of weapons of mass destruction justifying or legitimize the US military operations against the possessors? The international community has to answer these questions rationally and reasonably.

Importantly, the empirical research indicates that the basis for declaring Iran, Iraq and North Korea as rogue states club members is inadequate. Like many other terms of political discourse, the term Rogue State has two uses: a propagandist use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states who do not regard themselves as bound by international norms. Logic suggests that the most powerful states should tend to fall into the latter category unless internally constrained, an expectation that history confirms. In March 1999, the newsletter of the American Society of International Law observed that international law is today probably less highly regarded in the US than at any time in the century.[46]

Iraq was singled out as the preeminent villain of the proliferation discourse, identified as the paradigmatic rogue state. According to the Americans account, Saddam Hussain had WMD and links with the international terrorists network.  In 1991 Gulf War, the fear throughout the fighting had been that Iraq would use the WMD. In the end, however, the war proved entirely conventional. The WMD were not fired, but it was likely, if not certain, that they were still there. What was to be done about these Iraqi weapons? Iraq had lost conventional war, and convention dictates that victors can write the terms of a cease-fire. What was written was UN Security Council Resolution 687, which ordered Iraq to disarm, and the United Nations created a special organ, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), to make sure Iraq complied. In 1998, Saddam government and UNSCOM inspectors had a deadlock, which led the UNSCOM inspectors to pack up and left Iraq. The crisis emanated after the Iraqi government’s objection to the presence of Americans in the team of international inspectors charged with disarming Iraq, claiming that the US was spying on Iraq and that US members of the UNSCOM were therefore no longer welcome. The inspection team had a slightly different explanation for Iraq’s actions. According to UNSCOM members, they were on the verge of uncovering the lethal VX liquid nerve agent when Saddam Hussain ordered US members of the team to leave Iraq.[47] Richard Butler reported to the UN on continued Iraqi obstruction.[48] To be precise, non-compliance of Baghdad resulted in the US and British massive air strikes—Operation Desert Fox—to punish Iraq for failing to follow the rules.[49]

The Bush Administration had exaggerated the Iraqi threat and launched a military campaign against the Saddam Hussain regime. President George W. Bush told the American people on 17 March 2003 that: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."[50] This indicates that US attacked Iraq because of its weapons of mass destruction program. As a result the scope of war on terrorism has been broadened, i.e., the inclusion of states suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction as legitimate targets for the US. This military campaign is not viewed as a positive development for the efforts for curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It has not only discarded the UN inspections that had effectively contained Saddam Hussain unconventional weapons programs[51], but also introduced a new trend in the global politics.

Realistically, it seems too simplistic to endorse that the military action in Iraq would eliminate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Many security analysts argue that since the end of Cold War and sudden demise of an enemy that had kept the American strategic thinkers completely preoccupied throughout the Cold War, there has been created a conceptual void which provided almost unlimited scope for flight of imagination ending up with such odd formulations as the “Rogue States” and “Axis of Evil”. More precisely, the thesis of Clash of Civilization seems pertinent in the present global politics.  The Operation Iraqi Freedom seems very much part of this exercise. The concepts such as Rogue States, States of Concern and Axis of Evils had been conceived to justify and legitimize the US post-Cold War armed forces posture.  What lesson will North Korean or Iranian leaders draw from the Iraq war: should they curtail their nuclear ambitions, or speed them up? The answer seems not affirmative.

The Iraqi situation in the post US victory proves that the military intervention to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seems not a rational choice. If inspections had been given a chance to work and Saddam had been disarmed without war, it would have been seen as a tremendous victory for the US non-proliferation policy and world's enforcement of the international WMD related treaties. Operation Iraqi Freedom seems, simply, Bush's War, a highly personal vendetta and exercise in raw power. Worse, to justify war, the Bush administration ridicules inspections, thus undercutting future applications in Iran or North Korea. But the impact may be more immediate. If the war against terrorism destabilizes such states, then the weapons, materials or scientists may flow to other nations or terrorist groups. For example, Iraqi military officers or scientist, fearing war crime trials, might have fled before or during the war carrying their knowledge or even weapons with them to other nations or groups.

Muslim World: Increase in Internal and External Challenges

The cost of occupying Iraq for the US has turned out to be far higher than it was estimated. The widespread unpopularity of Operation Iraqi Freedom, especially among Muslims, had weakened the willingness of key countries to share intelligence information and other resources so vital to winning the war on terrorism. Frankly speaking, it gives rise to skepticism among the Muslims. The toppling of Saddam Hussain’s regime is considered in the Muslim states a great security advantage to Israel. Tel Aviv does not need to worry any more about WMD threats from Baghdad. “In addition, the decisive American military action sent an unmistakable message to a would-be proliferator (i.e., Iran) that the US will not tolerate a new nuclear power in the Middle East”, opined Gawdat Baghat.[52] Importantly, the Iranian officials categorically denied any interest in or possession of WMD. Israel and the US, however, believe that Iran has a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons as well as an active program to manufacture nuclear weapons. Therefore, the US and its allies have been expressing serious concerns overe the Iran’s nuclear program.

Though Pakistan is an ally of the US in its war on terrorism, but it is also victim of US non-proliferation agenda. The ongoing international nuclear debate manifests that the US led Western states’ earnest desire is to eliminate or eradicate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons potential. Therefore, they have adopted discriminatory anti nuclear policies against Pakistan. These states intellectuals, officials, electronic and print media have been always maligning Pakistan’s nuclear program. They present hypothetical baseless worst scenarios, such as disintegration of Pakistan and falling of nuclear weapons in the hands of extremists or the change of President Pervaiz Mushaaraf government and excess of Al Qaeda’s sympathizer to the nuclear weapons and finally transferring them to the terrorists, which they would use against the US and its allies.

Jonathan Medalia chalked out hypothetical scenarios about the nuclear crisis in Pakistan. He argued that Pakistan might be the source of nuclear weapons or materials for terrorists under several scenarios: (1) Islamists in the armed services might provide such assistance covertly under the current government; (2) if the present government was overthrown by fundamentalists, the new government might make weapons available to terrorists; or (3) such weapons might become available if chaos, rather than a government, followed the overthrow.[53] Are these assertions based on the empirical research? What is reality in these arguments? The answer is simple that their findings lack reality. These fictions are biased and baseless. For instance, since the invention of nuclear weapons the nuclear Mafia has been operating, and one cannot find a serious action against the nuclear traffickers and their states of residence. Importantly, since they learnt about the involvement of Pakistani scientists in the nuclear black market, they have unleashed hostile propaganda against Pakistan. They deliberately ignore the Western members of the nuclear underworld network. The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security concluded in its finding that there was a familial aspect to the underworld nuclear network. “Europeans who were involved in the 1970s or 1980s had sons that became involved with them in the 1990s," the report said.[54] It seems that if they investigate the Europeans, the secrets regarding the clandestine development of Israeli nuclear weapons program become public, which is not in the interest of the US.

The Government of Pakistan without hiding the secrets acted responsibly on the issue of nuclear underworld network. Knowing the probability of political backlash, President Pervaiz Musharraf initiated investigation against the scientists. According to the Pakistani official announcement the country’s chief weapons scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and his associates conducted the nuclear know how exchange without the approval and knowledge of the Government of Pakistan. President of Pakistan claimed in his news conference on 7 February 2004 that the civil and military bureaucracy was not a part of this illicit nuclear trafficking. Moreover, the chief of International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad El Baradei also stated, Dr. Khan was merely the “tip of the iceberg”. His reference to the tip was meant to remind the international community that there exists a large underworld nuclear market, which is profitably cashing on the nations’ desire to remove their sense of insecurity. Regrettably, these analysts ignore these realities and their entire focus is on maligning Pakistan. The bottom line of their arguments is complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of Pakistan’s nuclear program. This prejudiced approach generates problems for the Government of Pakistan and strengthens anti-American forces within the country.  

    The Iraq occupation has badly strained the capabilities of the US military. To maintain the adequate troop levels in Iraq, the US is asking (or pressurizing covertly) Pakistan and Turkey. The people in these countries are opposed to sending troops to the violence-torn Iraq. There are chances that internal political instability would start, if these states send their troops in Iraq. For example, on July 26, 2004, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA) president and parliamentary leader Qazi Hussain Ahmed warned the government of Pakistan against sending troops to Iraq and said there would be a nation-wide reaction against such a decision, particularly when the nation will face the tragedy of receiving coffins containing the bodies of its jawans.[55] Similarly, Turkey is also in trouble. Gabriel Kolko argued, “Turkey’s problem was simple: the US pressured it, despite overwhelmingly anti-war Turkish public and political opinion, to allow American troops to invade Iraq from Turkey—in effect, to enter the war on its side.”[56] In brief, the overwhelming Turks majority believes that Ankara ought to stay out of the Iraq war.

Conclusion

The international law protects the sovereignty of disagreeable regimes.  Operation Iraqi Freedom has raised ethical and legal questions about a preemptive military strike. It lacks international institutional (UN) legitimization. Is this legal? The United Nations Charter, following Just War theory permits a country to defend itself, but only in the event of an armed attack and only as a last resort. Therefore, the Bush administration is accused of having waged an aggressive war against Iraq, exactly the same crime of which Iraq was accused in 1990 following the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The declared objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom were to curb proliferation of WMD and to free the Iraqis from the brutal rule of Saddam Hussain. Nevertheless, an end to Iraqis agony appears to be nowhere in sight. The popular uprising going on in Iraq against the US and its allies. The focus of insurgency may shift - from Basra to Baghdad or from Najaf to Fallujah and back to Najaf - but violence seems to have become endemic. Moreover, the government led by Prime Minister Ayad Alawi has no control over large parts of Iraq, because it is seen as America's collaborator. In August 2004, the threat to the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf and a further loss of life were averted because Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani managed to enter the holy city after negotiating a withdrawal by the Mehdi army while the US-led forces waited outside. This proves that the pro US non-elected Alawi government lacks potential to create stability in Iraq.

Operation Iraqi Freedom manifests that military power still remains the currency in the global politics. The security doctrine of the US indicates that nuclear weapons occupy an important place in its war strategies. Similarly, other nuclear weapon states give great importance to their nuclear arsenals in their strategies. Therefore, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. Realistically, as long as some states possess nuclear weapons or are protected by them in alliances and others do not, this asymmetry breeds chronic global insecurity. The underdogs always try to alter the status quo. Moreover, it seems that terrorists might acquire nuclear weapons besides chemical and biological weapons. Admittedly, it would be difficult for terrorists to attack a US city using nuclear weapons, but such an attack is plausible and would have catastrophic consequences. This sort of situation warrants new creative thinking for curbing the proliferation of WMD. Whereas, the US approach towards the present non-proliferation regime not only discredits it, but also increases the chances of nuclear weapons proliferation. This entails that the US would reconsider its current nuclear postures, practices and priorities, so that the idea of global nuclear security would be contemplated.

 In sum, the US has been relying on a state-centric strategy to tackle an essentially non-state phenomenon. Despite it, the war in Afghanistan struck a severe blow to terrorism but the war in Iraq may have reinvigorated them. The bombing in the UN Head Quarters, resistance and suicidal attacks, kidnapping of foreign nationals, etc in Iraq are the evidences that America had taken a country that was not a victim of terrorism and turned it into one. The Bush Administration’s desire to proclaim mission accomplished rather quickly might actually have prolonged the war against terrorism. It seems that war against Iraq was a distraction from, not a victory in, the war on terrorism. This necessitates the need for a creative thinking about how to confront the growing terrorist backlash that has been unleashed. The US, being the world’s predominant military, economic, and political power and above all the primary terrorists target, should take the lead in fashioning a forward-looking strategy. In short, instead of unilateralist approach, the US takes into consideration a collective approach—by international accords and bodies such as the UN—for combating terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.