Search

Begin New Search Topic Weapons of Mass Destruction Political Geography Iraq Content Type Working Paper Publishing Institution The Cato Institute

1. The Syria Accountability Act Taking the Wrong Road to Damascus

Author:
Claude Salhani
Publication Date:
03-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
On December 12, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, a law designed to pressure Syrian president Bashar Assad's government to work more aggressively in fighting terrorism at home and abroad. Implementation of the new measures, which combine punitive economic sanctions with diplomatic pressure, threatens to escalate into a new conflict in the Middle East. Some influential people in Washington welcomed such a confrontation, believing that it would lead to regime change in Damascus similar to the one that was effected in neighboring Iraq.
Topic:
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Washington, Middle East, Arabia, and Syria

2. Mini-Nukes and Preemptive Policy: A Dangerous Combination

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
11-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Currently, the United States relies on conventional bunker-busting bombs—such as the GBU-28, which was used in both Afghanistan and Iraq—to destroy hardened, underground targets. Legislation is pending in Congress that would provide funding for research—but not engineering or development—for low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons for targets that cannot be destroyed by conventional bunker busters.
Topic:
Terrorism, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Iraq

3. Why the United States Should Not Attack Iraq

Author:
Ivan Eland and Bernard Gourley
Publication Date:
12-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
For months the Bush administration has been preparing the country for war with Iraq. The administration has argued that only a forcible regime change can neutralize the threat that Saddam Hussein is said to pose. But the assumptions that underlie the administration's policy range from cautiously pessimistic to outright fallacious. First, there is a prevalent belief that if Iraq is able to obtain nuclear weapons it will inevitably use them. Second, there is a notion that Hussein is totally irrational and cannot be trusted to act in a predictable manner; and, because of that, his leadership creates a substantial risk of instability in the Middle East. Finally, many people in the United States have come to believe that war in Iraq may be the only means of nullifying the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.
Topic:
Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Arabia