Senator Chuck Hagel

"We have a momentous opportunity here to restructure, reshape, redefine parts of the world that we might not have had an opportunity to reshape and redefine for a long time, maybe not even in our lifetimes," remarked Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebr.) at a conference sponsored by AEI's New Atlantic Initiative. He and a number of internationally recognized policymakers and experts discussed on November 30 how we can best harness that opportunity in the war on terrorism.

Richard Perle of AEI argued that Iraq should be the next focus of the war on terrorism, because Saddam Hussein not only harbors terrorists but has a demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against unprotected civilians. Perle proposed that we align with the Iraqi opposition to Saddam and oust his regime in a manner similar to the one used to depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. He was confident that a combination of Iraqi opposition forces on the ground, almost inevitable defections from the Iraqi army on which Saddam depends, and American air power should be sufficient to do the job.

Hagel cautioned that the United States should consult with its allies before embarking on such a mission. Although his position since September 11 has been that Saddam Hussein will have to be dealt with at some point, the senator said, "I don't think this president, this Congress, is going to do anything foolish. I don't think there's going to be any unilateral, arbitrary decision to send B-52s over Baghdad." Hagel also voiced concern that whoever fills the resulting power vacuum in Iraq could pose even more of a danger to its citizenry and the Western world. The United States should collaborate with its allies to ensure not only that Saddam is removed from power, but also to see that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction do not fall into other dangerous hands.

British Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith agreed that the United States should not unilaterally launch into a war with Iraq. Smith, who has discussed the matter with Britain's prime minister, said Tony Blair "recognized, I believe, that there is a particular and distinctive threat now posed by Iraq, which is clearly, obviously greater by nature of the scale of what they do and what they possess." He continued, "I would urge the United States to make certain that it puts on record all its understanding and knowledge of what's been going on, the links with terror organizations, the way in which they've operated in and out of these countries, the way in which the weapons of mass destruction are being developed." If that is done, Smith concluded, many more countries would support the United States in focusing next on Iraq.

Iraq should be a focus of the war on terrorism, former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, but the United States must coordinate with his country to make sure Israel is prepared to defend itself against Iraq in such a battle. Israel, he said, is Iraq's target of preference in times of international crisis.

Whether or not the United States chooses Iraq for phase two of the war on terrorism, Netanyahu argued, it must go on to that phase as quickly as possible, while the prospect of what happened to the Taliban is fresh in the minds of the leaders of other countries harboring terrorists. "Victory breeds victory for either side in the war on terror. When we win, they contract. When we lose, they grow stronger, ever increasing their powers of destruction and their will to destroy. So a growing sense of the inevitability of our victory is imperative if we are to achieve it." He added that winning, not coordinating with and maintaining the coalition, should be the goal of the war, noting that such has been the strategy so far. Perle agreed that if we go from the destruction of the Taliban to the destruction of the regime of Saddam Hussein, our ability to persuade other countries to shut the terrorist networks down and turn in the individuals to the proper authorities will be greatly enhanced.