A US military strike on Iraq or any other country developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons would essentially be ”self-defence”, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday.
Rumsfeld said the choice facing US leaders in such a case would be either to wait for a ”Pearl Harbour” style surprise attack, in which thousands or millions of people could die, or striking first.
The possibility of a US strike on Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein has been a subject of media speculation ever since President George Bush took office last year. Anticipation increased in January when Bush named Iraq as part of the ”axis of evil” because of Hussein’s drive for weapons of mass destruction and his support of terrorist groups.
Asked at a Pentagon press briefing to justify a potential attack on Iraq, Rumsfeld instead answered in general terms about the dangers posed by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of dictators, especially compared to the conventional weapons of the last century.
”Is it incumbent upon us to wait until there is a Pearl Harbour … and risk not several thousand but several hundreds of thousands of people, or millions?” Rumsfeld said.
”Or … is it the responsibility of a free people to … see the risk (and) take a step to prevent that in your own self-defence?” he asked.
Rumsfeld said people were already beginning to ask such questions in considering the risks and benefits of various actions toward Iraq.
Although Bush has declared ”regime change” in Baghdad to be the goal of US policy, he has repeatedly said he would explore all options and has no war plans on his desk.
The Pentagon, however, launched an internal probe last week to determine who leaked a conceptual battle plan for an Iraq invasion to The New York Times. Rumsfeld was particularly incensed by that leak, and said whoever divulged the information should be jailed. – Sapa-DPA