Christopher Ruddy
Tuesday, April 1, 2003

We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons. There is a slim, but real, possibility Saddam has one or more small nuclear bombs. He almost certainly has the ability to explode a “dirty nuke.”

The American leadership seems to believe the risk of being attacked with such weapons is small. Recently, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on "Meet the Press" that Saddam’s actual deployment of such weapons would be difficult.

As Rumsfeld said, "he can't do it himself, which is a good thing. He can order it, but he can't physically make it happen. And we have focused extensively on the military people that he would have to persuade to do it, and let them know in no uncertain terms that they must not do it ....”

With suicide bombers and agents willing to commit gross war crimes, we should not dismiss the notion that Saddam may use mass destruction weapons.

Even Rumsfeld says the possibility “grows” as we approach Baghdad. Rumsfeld has publicly threatened that officers involved in such attacks will be “hunted down the rest of their lives for having committed those kinds of crimes.”

Is that threat, of being hunted down, enough medicine to prevent the use of such weapons?

Not likely. Not from what we have seen from Saddam’s henchmen so far.

In fact, America must clearly and unequivocally raise the stakes for Saddam and his crew. We must threaten to use similar weapons, including nuclear ones, in response and in a devastating manner. This may not prevent the use of such weapons, but it is certainly a cost-effective prophylactic to stop their use.

We must privately and clearly tell the Iraqi regime, through direct and indirect channels, that if the U.S. or its troops are attacked with weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqis can expect a full, retaliatory strike of weapons of greater power and effect.

Such a strategy was successfully used during the Gulf War.

As Bob Woodward noted in his book "The Commanders," “During the Gulf War, the United States hinted directly to the Iraqi leadership that any use of biological or chemical weapons would trigger a U.S. nuclear response ...."

Instead of talking publicly about “hunting down war criminals” who use such weapons, we should be talking about an overwhelming and devastating retaliation, in vague terms, that make clear our intentions.

We need to call the bluff of the Iraqis early. We need to do what President Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis.

At the time, Kennedy could have simply threatened that if a nuclear-tipped missile based in Cuba hit the U.S., the U.S. would retaliate, in kind, against Cuba.

No, Kennedy didn’t say that. In a televised address to the nation, heard clearly in Moscow, he warned that even if one missile from Cuba struck the U.S., the Soviet Union itself should expect total retaliation.

“It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy had upped the ante. This concept of devastating response may be the only arrow we have to use when facing the ferocious evil of Saddam’s regime. We should use it.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Middle East
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
Editor's note:
Get FREE web traffic to your website INSTANTLY! Click Here Now!