Weighing the case against Iraq. (National).

The attack may come with lightning speed, using ground-hugging jets and helicopters to strike directly at Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, in his Baghdad headquarters. Or perhaps the blow will come more slowly, after a lengthy buildup of troops on a neighboring border, in a meticulously planned assault across miles of desert.

Saddam is widely believed to have stockpiled chemical and biological weapons, and is trying to acquire nuclear weapons capable of inflicting massive civilian casualties. President George W. Bush has made it clear that he considers Saddam a direct threat to the U.S. and the world.

The President issued an ultimatum last month to the United Nations: Take action against Iraq; if not, the U.S. will act alone to remove Saddam from power. "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger," he told the UN.

Preparations for war with Iraq, which would likely be the biggest U.S. military operation in years, are under way. More than 20,000 American military personnel are in the Persian Gulf region now, within close striking distance of Iraq. (By contrast, the war in Afghanistan currently involves about 9,000 troops.) Also in position are hundreds of tanks and fighter-bombers, and the antimissile batteries to protect U.S. forces. Much more is planned.

With thousands of lives at stake, any U.S. decision to attack will depend on the outcome of a high-stakes international diplomatic and political chess game. Here are some of the arguments and factors that will play a role.

GULF WAR, PART 2

Iraq has been at war almost constantly since Saddam rose to power. In 1980, it launched a border war with Iran that lasted nearly eight years. In 1990, Iraq invaded oil-rich Kuwait, only to be driven back the following year by a U.S.-led international coalition in the Persian Gulf war.

Saddam employed chemical weapons against Iran, and against his own civilian people. A poison gas attack in 1988 killed 5,000 Kurds, an ethnic group in the north of Iraq that had sided with Iran.

Following the Gulf War, a defeated Saddam agreed to stop trying to produce or acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. But UN weapons inspectors found and destroyed many existing weapons and production plants until Saddam refused to permit further inspections in 1998.

U.S. officials argue that the Iraqi dictator continues to develop weapons of mass destruction and could turn them over to terrorists bent on striking the U.S., leading to casualties and devastation that would dwarf the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But some members of Congress with access to intelligence information say the administration is exaggerating the Iraqi threat. Opponents of military action say they doubt Saddam would risk his own annihilation by using his deadly arsenal--indeed, fear of U.S. retaliation may be the reason he did not deploy chemical and biological weapons in the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that Saddam still needs several years to produce enough uranium for a bomb, though he might acquire what he needs more quickly through theft or on the black market. Opponents also say an Iraq attack would take attention away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, which launched the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

THE MILITARY STAKES

Could the U.S. win a war against Iraq? Most military analysts say yes. The U.S. has already beaten the Iraqi Army once, in the 1991 Gulf War, a shattering defeat in which an estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, while the U.S. suffered 148 combat deaths. The defeat left Iraq weakened militarily, capable of fielding perhaps 350,000 troops--a third of its size at the time of the Gulf War. And military analysts believe many Iraqi troops, suffering low morale, will refuse to fight if attacked.

But other military experts say Saddam's troops may make their stand in Iraq's densely populated cities, where house-to-house combat could bring high American casualties. And military analysts warn that all wars have unintended consequences. Beyond the implications for Iraq, they say, an attack could inflame Arab anger against the U.S. and Israel, leading to greater Middle East instability. There is also concern that Saddam might use long-range Scud missiles, armed with poison gases or deadly microbes, to retaliate against U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Israel. During the Gulf War, 39 Iraqi missiles loaded with explosives struck Israel. The Israelis did not retaliate at the time. But if Iraq attacks again, according to Israeli and Western officials, Israel plans to strike back.

Iraq has at least one way to avoid or delay war. After President Bush demanded that the UN act against Iraq, Saddam agreed to allow weapons inspectors to return. But administration officials say they believe Iraq will do what it has done in the past: allow inspectors, but then throw up countless obstacles to keep them from doing their jobs.

Most weapons-inspection experts say that without free access to Iraqi industrial plants and freedom to talk to Iraqi scientists in private, the inspections are doomed to failure. But with many nations opposed to a U.S. attack, international pressure is strong to give weapons inspections a chance to work.

What about Iraq's future? If Saddam were removed, Bush and his advisers contend, Iraq could become a model for democracy in the Arab world. Skeptics say the President's view overlooks several major challenges. For one, Iraq may require U.S. military occupation for decades, because of conflicts among the nation's rival ethnic groups. Presently, Sunni Muslims, making up 17 percent of the population, dominate the army and the government. Shiite Muslims, though comprising 60 percent of the population, are repressed. (To this day, the U.S.-led coalition from the Gulf War still enforces "no-fly zones" above the Shiite's territory in the south, and the Kurdish area in the north, to deter large-scale action by Saddam against them.) Iraq would probably need long-term U.S. help to establish a new, more representative government and restore its war-damaged infrastructure and economy.

GLOBAL POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

The Bush administration faces an uphill fight to gain international support for removing Saddam by force. Opposition to a war ranges from extremely strong (throughout the Arab world) to more moderate but still stiff (in Russia, China, France, and many other European countries). Some diplomats warn that the U.S. risks alienating nations that could provide valuable assistance in its war on terrorism.

A Persian Gulf conflict could also have an enormous impact on global oil supplies. Oil fields, pipelines, refineries, and shipping would all be vulnerable to disruption, which could raise prices. But under a new regime, analysts say, Iraq's oil production--free of the current UN sanctions and revitalized by foreign investment--could rival that of Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter. Greater supplies would mean cheaper oil.

PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE

In making his case against Saddam, President Bush offered a major shift in American foreign policy. He argued that the U.S. has an "inherent right" to strike first against countries that harbor or aid terrorists--even before they pose a direct and immediate threat of armed attack on the U.S.

The President does not assert that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but claims that a so-called pre-emptive strike is a justifiable act of self-defense against a nation likely to turn over weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

To many foreign leaders, the new American policy looks like a blank check for the U.S. to attack any country it disagrees with. And legal scholars suggest that a U.S. attack on Iraq without UN approval might violate the United Nations Charter, a legally binding treaty the U.S. signed. Under the Charter, members of the UN may resort to force only after direct attack.

But President Bush has made clear that he is willing to risk angering foreign leaders with a unilateral U.S. strike, if the UN fails to act. "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather," he said.

1980

The year after Saddam Hussein becomes President, Iraq attacks Iran, which it blames for inciting rebellions by Iraq's Kurds and Shiites. An eight-year war begins.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1981

Fearing a future threat if Iraq develops material for a nuclear weapon, Israel attacks and destroys an Iraqi nuclear reactor.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1988

Iraq attacks Kurdish villages in the north with poison gas, killing 5,000 Kurds who are Iraqi citizens.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1990

Iraqi troops Invade and overrun the oil-rich kingdom of Kuwait. The United Nations demands that Iraq release Kuwait, and imposes sanctions that block trade with Iraq.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1991

A U.S.-led alliance with UN backing attacks Iraq In the Persian Gulf war. The alliance frees Kuwait, but leaves Saddam in power. In a cease-firs, Iraq agrees to scrap weapons programs and allow UN verification.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1991-92

Iraq crushes Kurdish and Shiite revolts. Iraqi planes are barred from "no-fly" zones in the north to protect Kurds, and in the south to protect Shiites.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1996

Despite Iraq's continuing refusal to meet terms of 1991 cease-fire agreement, UN allows Iraq to resume oil sales, with money to be used to buy food and medicine for civilians.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

1998

After Saddam bars UN Inspectors from suspected weapons sites, the U.S. and Britain bomb Iraqi military targets. Bombings continue today.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

* If President Bush considers Saddam Hussein a "grave and gathering danger," why do you think he made an appeal to the UN, rather than just attacking Iraq?

* Critics say President Bush's refusal to immediately accept Iraq's offer to admit weapons inspectors shows that he is more interested in getting rid of Saddam Hussein than in preserving peace. Do you agree or disagree?

* How wood you answer someone who says Iraq is far away from the U.S. and poses no real threat to Americans?

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the background behind President Bush's effort to oust Iraq's Saddam Hussein and the pros and cons of the policy options facing the President and members of his administration.

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

COOPERATIVE LEARNING: Break the class into three groups, with each group addressing one option. After discussing all issues and questions, students in each group vote yes or no on their option.

GROUP 1, OPTION 1: The U.S. attacks Iraq.

DISCUSSION STARTER: Remind students that the U.S. is the world's only superpower. Does this mean the U.S. has the right--even the duty--to topple a dangerous dictator? Would a military alliance with other countries make the chain of command unnecessarily complex?

SOME QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER: How many Americans will die or be wounded? What will the war cost? How long will the U.S. have to stay in Iraq?

GROUP 2, OPTION 2: Work with UN inspection teams before taking any military action.

DISCUSSION STARTER: Does the U.S. risk looking like a self-appointed world police officer if it ignores the views of UN members who oppose unilateral action?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER: Will Iraq be able to hide weapons from inspectors? Will working within the UN divert terrorists' focus on the U.S.? Assuming inspectors dismantle weapons, what's to stop Saddam Hussein from restocking them?

GROUP 3, OPTION 3: Some observers suggest "coercive inspections," with a military force dictating where inspectors may operate.

DISCUSSION STARTER: Is this suggestion a middle ground, between war and potentially ineffectual civilian inspections?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER: Might this option produce a violent reaction from Saddam? Might he accept the option if he was assured that he could remain in power?

Upfront QUIZ 1

MULTIPLE CHOICE

DIRECTIONS: Circle the letter next to the best answer.

1.  Weapons of mass destruction are defined as chemical,
    biological, or nuclear weapons that are capable of

    a striking the United States.
    b inflicting damage upon Israel.
    c being used against Kurds, a minority ethnic group
      in northern Iraq.
    d inflicting massive civilian casualties.

2.  More than 20,000 U.S. troops are now stationed within
    close striking distance of Iraq. How does this number
    compare with the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

    a It's about the same number as those in Afghanistan.
    b It's slightly more than the number in Afghanistan.
    c It's nearly twice as many as those in Afghanistan.
    d It's less than half the number in Afghanistan.

3.  Twenty-one years ago, Israel, fearing a future threat,
    sent warplanes to destroy an Iraqi

    a nuclear reactor.
    b shipping facility.
    c army command center.
    d missile factory.

4.  Saddam Hussein allowed UN weapons inspectors
    into Iraq following

    a the end of Iraq's war with Iran.
    b his accession to power.
    c his country's defeat in the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
    d Israel's demand that Iraq show the world that it
      had no hostile intentions in the Middle East.

5.  Officials in the Bush administration say one of their
    greatest concerns regarding Iraq is that Saddam
    Hussein will

    a launch a nuclear missile against the U.S.
    b turn weapons of mass destruction over to terrorist
      groups, who will then use these weapons to inflict
      greater casualties than those suffered from the Sept.
      11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
    c attack Israel.
    d renew attacks against minority groups in his
      own country.

6.  In addition to its conflict with the U.S., Iraq faces
    instability from

    a its growing dependence on other countries for its
      water supply.
    b disputes between ethnic groups.
    c the rise of Islamic militancy among its fast-growing
      population of young people.
    d the recent dramatic drop in oil prices, which have
      weakened its already shaky economy.

7.  In 1996, the UN eased economic sanctions against Iraq
    in spite of the fact that that country had failed to meet
    the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement following the
    Persian Gulf war. This UN concession allowed Iraq to

    a sell oil to buy food and medicine.
    b rebuild its war-damaged factories.
    c rebuild its military.
    d reform its immigration policy.

8.  The U.S. has established "no fly" zones in northern
    and southern Iraq to protect

    a oil fields.
    b the environment.
    c American investments.
    d Iraqi ethnic and religious groups.

9.  One argument of those who are skeptical of President
    Bush's policy is that even a victory over Iraq will

    a cost the lives of many Iraqi soldiers.
    b result in UN economic sanctions against the U.S.
    c require a long U.S. military occupation of Iraq.
    d inflame the Iraqi immigrant community in the U.S.

10. What link does "Weighing the Case Against Iraq"
    establish between a war against Iraq and economic
    change in the world? The article

    a intimates that a war will boost the revenues of
      defense industries.
    b questions whether Iraq's economy could survive a
      new Persian Gulf war.
    c says that a new regime, free of sanctions and open to
      investment, could produce more oil, bringing lower
      prices.
    d suggests the defeat of Saddam Hussein will produce
      a rise in oil prices, thus crippling the economies of
      nations like the U.S.

ANSWER KEY:

1. (d)  2. (c)
3. (a)  4. (c)
5. (b)  6. (b)
7. (a)  8. (d)
9. (c) 10. (c)