Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (21 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Oct. 16, 2002 |
| Report Number |
RL31607 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Johanna Bockman, Meaghan Marshall, Anjula Sandhu, and Steven A. Hildreth, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The debate over whether, when, and how to prosecute a major U.S. military intervention in Iraq
and
depose Saddam Hussein is complex, despite a general consensus in Washington that the world would
be much better off if Hussein were not in power. Although most U.S. observers, for a variety of
reasons, would prefer some degree of allied or U.N. support for military intervention in Iraq, some
observers believe that the United States should act unilaterally even without such multilateral
support. Some commentators argue for a stronger, more committed version of the current policy
approach toward Iraq and leave war as a decision to reach later, only after exhausting additional
means of dealing with Hussein's regime.
A number of key questions are raised in this debate, such as: 1) is war on Iraq linked to the war
on terrorism and to the Arab-Israeli dispute; 2) what effect will a war against Iraq have on the war
against terrorism; 3) are there unintended consequences of warfare, especially in this region of the
world; 4) what is the long-term political and financial commitment likely to accompany regime
change and possible democratization in this highly divided, ethnically diverse country; 5) what are
the international consequences (e.g., to European allies, Russia, and the world community) of any
U.S. strategy that emphasizes unilateralism or multilateralism; 6) to what degree is U.N. or
congressional support required or even needed; and 7) what are the ramifications of not taking
action to ensure that Iraq is not acquiring weapons of mass destruction?
On October 10th, after a month of debate, the House passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res 114)
that authorizes the use of force against Iraq and requires the Bush Administration to report to
Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action
has begun. The President is also required to submit a progress report to Congress at least every 60
days. A few hours after the House vote, on October 11th, the Senate passed the joint resolution.
President Bush passed this into law on October 16, 2002 ( P.L. 107-243 ).
This report identifies selected statements by Bush Administration officials, former U.S.
government officials, columnists, and academic and think-tank policy analysts who have addressed
the issue of intervention in Iraq and summarizes some of their main arguments. Readers should note
that this is a rapidly evolving policy area, and the views of those cited may change since the time of
their referenced statements. This report will not be updated.
For further reading, see CRS Report RS21325, Iraq: Divergent Views on Military
Action , by
Alfred Prados, and CRS Report RL31339 , Iraq: U.S. Efforts to Change the Regime , by
Kenneth
Katzman.
