Is_US_Intervention_In_Irq_A_Certainty_

Is US Intervention In Irq A Certainty' As Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their successes in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the American debate has quickly turned to the question of where the fight against terrorism should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked about a wide-ranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other countries or terrorist organizations, but he has made it clear that the broader struggle against terrorism will be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan. A strong case can be made that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is so threatening to his people, his neighbors, and U.S. interests that the United States should use military force, unilaterally if necessary, to overthrow him. Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved. Instead of mounting a U.S. attack on Iraq as part of the current campaign, the Bush administration should take advantage of its success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to isolate Saddam's regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way. A new "Bush Doctrine" should announce that Baghdad's support for terrorist networks, saddam, united, states, against, iraqi, should, iraq, american, forces, overthrow, military, weapons, terrorist, terrorism, support, regime, hussein, even, power, mass, destruction, costs, bush, might, force, attacks, significant, qaeda, policy, likely, clear, risks, risk, out, lead, kuwait