Act now against Saddam and against terrorism

For the third time in 12 years, the U.S. Senate debated a resolution this week to address the threat posed to America and the global community by Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Hussein’s continued, aggressive production of weapons of massive destruction presents a real and immediate global menace. Given his existing capability to use chemical and biological weapons, and Iraq’s aggressive pursuit of nuclear capability, I have regrettably concluded that failure to act would put lives at risk – both here at home, and around the world.

A report made public Oct. 4 by U.S. intelligence found Hussein has sought to revamp and accelerate his nuclear weapons program, and that if left unchecked, Iraq would probably have a nuclear weapon this decade – possibly even “within a year.” The report states that, in flagrant violation of the 1991 cease-fire, Iraq is capable of “quickly producing and weaponizing” a variety of chemical and biological agents, including anthrax, “for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the U.S. homeland,”and found Iraq has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during the 1998 U.S. cruise missile strikes.

So why act now? The answer is found in the new, encroaching terrorist threat over the past decade foreshadowed by the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. That was the seminal moment when our enemies realized the realm of the possible, and began to develop and implement comprehensive strategies to systematically assault Americans and our interests whenever, wherever, and however they could.

Because our consciousness was not attuned to the emerging pattern of attacks, the pattern continued: from Khobar Towers in 1996, to the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, to the attack on the USS Cole in the fall of 2000. It culminated in the horrific events of Sept. 11, which forever changed the way we assess our security and vulnerability, and our conception of how weapons and warfare may be used against us.

It is through this prism that we must view an ever-emerging convergence of threats, represented on one hand by trans-national terrorism exemplified by al-Qaeda, and on the other by a regime in Iraq that has already developed and deployed horrific weapons of mass destruction. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has evidence that “al-Qaeda is operating in Iraq” and of the presence of senior members of al- Qaeda in Baghdad.

The question is, why is Hussein so single-mindedly, and at all costs, amassing such huge stores of horrific weapons? We know he has them. We know he has used them before. The question is, will he use them again? The logical conclusion is that we simply can’t afford the risk to humanity.

Some say we should wait until the threat is imminent – but how will we know when the danger is clear, present, and immediate – when people start checking into hospitals? When toxin shows up in the water supply? When a dirty bomb goes off? In the shadowy world of terrorism, that will already be too late.

For a terrorist organization that shares Hussein’s disdain for America, where better than Iraq to acquire weapons of mass destruction? And for Iraq, what better way to deliver these weapons than a terrorist who might smuggle a vial of smallpox in a suitcase, or store a canister of sarin gas in a cargo container? Former Chief UN Weapons Inspector Richard Butler told a reporter if Iraq decided to arm a terrorist group with weapons of mass destruction, “it would be a piece of cake.”

We cannot enter the diabolical mind of Saddam Hussein to know conclusively if and when he may deliver his weapons. But we must not underestimate his capability. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, before the Gulf War “the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was 5 to 7 years from having nuclear weapons. The experts were wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found Iraq was actually just six months to a year away.” Just imagine if we were confronted with an Iraq that already had nuclear capability.

In this context, we can no longer assure Americans Saddam Hussein can be contained and confined to Iraq. Therefore, I believe the world must disarm him now, when development of his capability is imminent – not waiting until it is imminent that he is about to strike.

Given the gravity of the global implications of Hussein’s serial intransigence, there is no substitute for the UN enforcing compliance, or for the U.S. working through the UN. Appropriately, the Senate resolution calls on the President to use the full weight of his office, through diplomatic and persuasive power, to convince the UN to impose and enforce unfettered, unrestricted inspections. The use of force should be the last resort – and under the resolution, it is the last resort.

Furthermore, granting military authority to the President in advance leaves no question as to the level of our commitment – strengthening the president’s ability to secure UN implementation of a new and enforceable resolution, potentially placing us on a course toward a peaceful disarmament. As always, diplomacy must constitute our first line of defense.

But in the event that action becomes necessary to safeguard our national security interests outside the auspices of the United Nations, let there be no mistake – the president must exert the last full measure of effort to build an international coalition to disarm Saddam Hussein. Because this shouldn’t have to be a solo endeavor. Iraq is not just a threat to America. It is a threat to all of humanity. And our goals with regard to Saddam Hussein are inseparable from our mission to eradicate terror at its roots.

Olympia J. Snowe, Maine’s senior senator, spoke Wednesday on the resolution. Her full remarks are available online at http://snowe.senate.gov