|
Materials
Recommended by Professor Hill
Books
Pollack,
Kenneth; The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq (Random
House, 2002).
Pollack, a Senior Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Director
for Gulf Affairs for the National Security Council, argues forcefully for
regime change in Iraq. He posits that
Hussein presently poses a threat to stability within the valuable Persian Gulf region while
supporting anti-American elements engaged in the War on Terror. Pollack
writes, "the United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the
present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its
international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors."
This is a particularly thoughtful piece. Even doves who disagree with
Pollack's conclusions find his case compelling in its logic.
Articles
Next
Stop Baghdad? by Kenneth Pollack (March/April 2002)
Pollack, who authored The Threatening
Storm, also offers a summary of his reasons for a military strike
against Hussein's regime in Foreign
Affairs, arguably America's leading foreign policy journal.
Saddam Hussein and
the UN's Moment by Charles Hill (September 10, 2002)
With the War on Terror one year old, the United Nations could be facing what
our lecturer Charles Hill calls its "League of Nations Moment." The
present opportunity to topple Hussein's repressive regime constitutes a
defining moment in international affairs, Hill argues, that will open up real
possibilities for progress at every level of international life.
Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's Speech (September 30, 2002)
A clear case for war against Iraq from one of the
leading hawks on Iraq within the Bush
Administration. Saddam Hussein is a menace to peace, to international
law, and to his own people. Moreover, his recent pledge to allow UN
weapons inspectors into his country is hardly worth the paper it was written
on. "Iraq's behavior over the
past decade requires that thoughtful people measure Iraq by its actions, as
opposed to its words," Rumsfeld said.
Those actions make one thing clear: Hussein must go.
The
Six-Front War by Charles Hill (October
7, 2002)
A potential war with Iraq must be viewed
through the larger prism of the ongoing War on Terror, argues our
lecturer, Charles Hill. The struggle against international terror must
be understood as a conflict to save the modern state and, with it, the modern
international system comprised of functioning nation-states. Terrorism
must be defeated, he argues, "to reverse further deterioration to the
state and its sovereignty; to recognize that international organizations can
work when responsive to their members but not as near-autonomous entities;
and to wage the war on terrorism until it defeats the Islamist ideology that
defines itself against the modern state." A conflict with Iraq would be but another
(albeit major) step towards that goal.
Saddam's Last
Ploy by William Safire (October 7, 2002)
A leading Conservative political columnist for The New York Times, Safire makes the case not only for a
preventative strike against Iraq, but for a more aggressive policy of
"regime change" as well. Safire argues that the goals of
disarmament and "regime change" must be seen as inseparable:
"There can be no guarantee of disarmament in Iraq," he writes,
"without the overthrow of Saddam and his gang."
[Note: Access
to this article requires registration with The
New York Times. Registration is free.]
Government
Documents/Speeches
President
Bush's Speech Before the UN General Assembly (September 12, 2002)
With this speech, President Bush makes the American case against Iraq before the
international community. Whereas he previously used the logic of preemptive
action to justify an invasion of Iraq, Bush now uses UN
resolutions to justify military action.
A Decade of
Deception and Defiance (September
12, 2002)
This White House document serves as a background paper to President Bush's UN
speech. The September 12 document provides specific examples of how Iraqi
President Saddam Hussein "has systematically and continually violated 16
United Nations Security Council Resolutions over the past decade." A
preface to the document states that it is not designed to catalog all of the
violations or other abuses committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Relevent Articles Authored by Professor Koh
The
Best Weapon: Article One by Harold Hongju Koh (September 16, 2001)
This is Professor Koh's September 2001 argument
against an overly-broad Congressional authorization of force to combat the
terrorists of September 11. As is the case a year later, Koh believes America can and must combat
its global threats without undermining its democracy at home through an overexuberant concentration of power in the executive
branch. "Congress has abundant constitutional power to punish the
perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks for what they are," he wrote:
"international criminals and violators of the law of all civilized
nations."
A
Better Way to Deal with Iraq by Harold Hongju
Koh (October 20, 2002)
In this editorial, Professor Koh outlines his own
objections to a proposed American conflict with Iraq: it would detract
from the War on Terror; there seems no immediate threat from Hussein; and
most importantly, a unilateral move would only cause harm to the United
Nations. We cannot "ignore the UN in launching our attack, then expect that the UN will be there for the many years
that it would take us to clean up and build a democratic postwar Iraq."
The Spirit of the Laws by
Harold Hongju Koh (Winter
2002)
Writing in the Harvard International Law
Journal, Professor Koh argues that our
response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, should closely
comport with the spirit of existing international law in order to "keep
the law on our side," "keep us on the moral high ground," and
"preserve the vital support of our allies, international institutitions, and the watching public as the crisis
proceeds."
Note: you
will need Acrobat Reader to read this article. If you don't have it
installed, click here to download. If you open this document and the
print is too small, you can enlarge the print by changing the number appearing
in the box in the upper left hand corner. Adjust to 100%.
Additional
Legal Resources and Opinions on the Conflict
But
What's the Legal Case for Preemption? by Bruce Ackerman (August 18, 2002)
According to Bruce Ackerman, a professor at Yale Law School, there is no
legal case for a preemptive strike against Iraq, and certainly none within
the annals of American history. The Gulf War was fought, for example,
to remedy an act already taken by Saddam Hussein, not to thwart a move he
might someday make. This is a vital distinction, both for the future of our
Constitution and for the future of the international system. Bush
"is constructing a double unilateralism," Ackerman
writes. "Freed from the restraints of the Security Council abroad
and Congress at home, the imperial presidency claims the authority to strike
preemptively at any danger....the breadth of this doctrine is
breathtaking."
The
Most Dangerous Person on Earth by Jack M. Balkin
(September 22, 2002)
George Bush's stand on preemptive strikes threatens to further erode the
separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, this Yale Law Professor
writes. He can thus wage war for his own political
advantage. "Armed with the doctrine of military preemption," Balkin argues, "the perpetual political campaign
perfected by our last president might well become the perpetual military
campaign of future presidents."
The
Kurds' Secret Scenarios by Chris Kutschera (Winter 2002)
Voices
From The Iraqi Street ICG Middle East Briefing (December
2002)
|