IN RECENT days, the US administration has been sending clear signals that it intends to launch some kind of military operation on Iraq. It is doing this in spite of apparent anxiety within the US Congress, over the objections of virtually all Arab states, and in the face of the disagreement of most of its allies.
Even its staunchest supporters, like Britain, are saying other alternatives to a military solution are still available.
Why, then, is there such a single-minded, almost obsessive focus on Iraq on the part of the Bush administration? The grounds in international law for such a military operation are questionable. The principal argument - that Iraq contributes to international terrorism is actually weak at present. And the claim that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, is a dangerous state may be true, but provides weak justification for a military strike.
The perceived danger is that Saddam is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and may soon have nuclear weapon capability.
Indeed, a Saddam caged in by effective sanctions is arguably less a threat than one faced with certain death, which is the scenario being drawn by the Americans. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and one can be sure that a desperate Saddam will be a very dangerous man.
Cool heads, it would appear, are failing to prevail in the US. Instead, an almost personal antipathy to Saddam seems to have emerged in Washington, DC.
In light of this, it is all the more important that the leaders of both governments and global civil society speak out in unambiguous terms against this tilt towards unilateralism on the part of the US.
