Chapter 11: Pirates, Warlords, and Terrorists: Challenges to the State

Action:

Invade Iraq
Saddam Hussein is definitely going to develop WMDs. He needs to be stopped and taken out of power. If we do not remove him now and he develops WMDs, then we face the dangers of both devastating terrorism and increased Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein would be much more difficult to remove from power once he has WMDs because if he is losing a war, he will face 'use it or lose it' pressures and deploy his WMDs.

Outcome:

The American public appreciates your hardline stance against Saddam Hussein but is skeptical about your softer approach in Afghanistan. However, fighting one war is much easier than fighting two wars. The war in Iraq will still be tough, but your mission would have been much harder if your military resources were overstretched between two large conventional wars.

Now that you have made short-term decisions regarding terrorism, you must establish a long-term strategy for dealing with failed and weak states. The best way to prevent the next 9/11 would be to make sure central governments retain sovereignty. Instability and deplorable living conditions foster radicalization and the rise of terrorist groups.

What do you do now?



Responsibility to ProtectWhen a state poses an international threat to security or an internal threat to the freedom of its people, the international community has the responsibility to intervene and protect human rights and international security. This choice requires a robust forward presence of the US military. Additionally, you, as President Bush, would alert the international community to an American commitment to protecting ideals of human rights and security.
International assistanceIntervention should be avoided at all costs. The US should help weak and failed states gain legitimacy through foreign aid and other forms of assistance. This choice requires the US to increase its foreign aid and assistance programs. In truly dire situations, the US would support UN-led peacekeeping interventions but would still condemn outright unilateral military intervention.