After 12 years of low-level warfare, a war against Iraq is a humanitarian disaster that can be avoided, writes Justin Kilcullen
Theories on possible motives and outcomes have abounded since a 5-in thick document detailing plans of a US military invasion of Iraq was leaked to the New York Times last month.
As the Iraqi people face the prospect of aerial bombardment and other forms of armed attack from the US and its allies, there is at least one key question that must be answered. What is there to gain or lose from such action?
In his State of the Union address in January, President Bush described Iraq along with North Korea and Iran as part of an "axis of evil". He emphasised the danger that the Iraqi regime posed by its unchecked accumulation of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic missiles.
But where is the evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them? This has not been presented. Indeed many experts including Mr Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector, have expressed grave doubt about the existence of such weapons in Iraq.
More worryingly, there is a considerable body of opinion that military action might be taken without getting fresh approval from the United Nations Security Council. While Saddam is in breach of UN resolutions passed after his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, this does not justify an all-out attack now.
In order to obtain a mandate to do this the US must persuade the Security Council to invoke chapter VII, article 42, to the UN charter, having first made the case that Iraq currently presents a "threat to the peace".
This will be very difficult given that Iraq's possession of and intention to use weapons of mass destruction is assumed rather than known.
Any war with Iraq would result in a US victory. This is to be expected with the US's military superiority. The Iraqi military is weak compared to 1990 when the country itself was a leading Middle Eastern power.
The US would be expected to engage in sustained and heavy air attacks. This would be in line with its strategy in Afghanistan and its general policy to minimise its own casualties. We can expect the US to use munitions such as cluster bombs.
The end result will be a heavy loss of life on the Iraqi side. Inevitably, as in Afghanistan, the air strikes will not be able to distinguish civilians from combatants. Men, women and children who are not bearing arms will be counted among the dead.
These innocent civilians have already borne the brunt of 12 years of low-level warfare in the form of economic sanctions.
I saw the suffering of the people when I travelled to Iraq as part of a Caritas Europa delegation in January 2000. I saw the crumbling buildings, the food queues and the sick children languishing in drug starved hospitals.
UNICEF estimates that 4,500 children die each month as a result of the blanket embargo on Iraq. A once-prosperous nation is now as poor as one of the least developed countries in Africa.
It has fallen to Trócaire, together with Caritas agencies and others, to organise supplementary feeding programmes and to repair the water and sanitation systems.
In any war with Iraq, there is the risk that people throughout the region will suffer through the escalation of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq would be expected to retaliate against an attack on Baghdad by unleashing its biological and chemical weapons on US targets. The US could respond with a nuclear strike.
It is unlikely that the regime will depose Saddam in the event of a US/British attack. In my visit to Baghdad I could see the contrast between the opulent life of the elite in the major cities and the suffering of the vast majority of the people.
Iraq is controlled by an elite of up to one million people including the security and intelligence apparatus who have a vested interest in Saddam's survival.
Saddam alone has made millions of euros from the smuggling operations set up to overcome sanctions. The elite have sufficient resources from legal and illegal oil sales. In the meantime, their 20 million compatriots experience extreme hardship.
Any war on Iraq would play havoc with the delicate politics of the Middle East and fuel existing anti-US feeling among Arab public opinion. It is this sentiment, fuelled by the US support for the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon, which has created fundamentalists who will commit acts of atrocities such as those perpetrated in New York and Washington on September 11th.
World leaders bear a heavy moral obligation to see that the full spectrum of non-violent means is employed to defend the common good. Military force when used must be governed by respect for the just war criteria especially on civilian immunity and proportionality.
The Western allies must not only act justly but must be seen to be acting justly if they are to succeed in marginalising terrorists. Considering the global fall-out - massive loss of life, regional instability and the threat of nuclear war - Trócaire believes that a war would be a disaster for the region and for the world and alternatives must be investigated.
Ireland, in its remaining months as a member of the Security Council, must push for the US and Britain to reverse their misguided policy towards Iraq. It is a lose-lose situation for all sides.
Justin Kilcullen is director of Trócaire, the Catholic Agency for World Development