STATE OF THE UNION
Speech turns up heat on Saddam

By George Gedda
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In laying out his case against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, President Bush left the clear impression that military action is all but inevitable because of the peril he believes Saddam poses.

"We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes," he said, adding that the outcome won't be in doubt. "We will prevail," he said.

Only fleetingly did he describe the potential risks involved in pursuing the military option against Saddam.

"For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come."

But to some, perhaps the greatest risk is that a U.S.-led attack will actually increase the likelihood of a retaliatory attack by Iraq on the United States.

Richard Betts of Columbia University writes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine that if a U.S. invasion succeeds, "Saddam will have no reason to withhold his best parting shot — which could be the use of weapons of mass destruction inside the United States.

"Such an Iraqi attack on U.S. civilians could make the death toll from September 11 look small."

Betts' view is not that of an observer on the ideological fringes.

Last fall, CIA Director George Tenet agreed, at the request of Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., to declassify material from a previously secret CIA analysis of Saddam's intentions and capabilities.

The key paragraphs read: "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. ...

"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD (weapons of mass destruction) attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

This view is shared by former President Clinton.

There are other concerns. Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group in Washington, worries about a post-Saddam U.S. military occupation of Iraq.

"Occupation of an Islamic country by the United States could be a recruiting poster for Islamic terrorists," Eland wrote recently. "We should remember the worldwide mobilization of Islamic radicals to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. An invasion of Iraq would play right into al-Qaida's hands. Terrorists hope for an excessive, intrusive response by their adversary so that they can recruit more supporters."

Bush promised that the American presence will be entirely benign: "We will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom."

Bush believes there is danger in waiting.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent," the president said Tuesday night. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option."

And the president drew a link between Iraq and al-Qaida that went beyond anything he had said previously.

He pointed to reports from detainees that Saddam is aiding al-Qaida members, among other terrorists. "Secretly," he said, "and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."