Oct 14, 2002 By Josh Krysak 6 min read

While one local congressman had his reservations and another his resolve, both voted Friday to approve the use of military force against Iraq if Saddam Hussein does not comply with United Nation demands for inspection and U.S. demands for disarmament. “We can no longer allow Saddam to thumb his nose at the United Nations, the international community and the United States,” said U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster (D-Bedford). “His madness must end, and we must send a strong message that the world will not tolerate terrorism in any form.”

Shuster said the vote for House Resolution 114, which stresses the need for the United States to work with the United Nations and exhaust all other diplomatic measures before using military force against Iraq, was the most important vote he has participated in as a congressman.

The House approved the resolution 296-133 on Thursday, the Senate 77-23 Friday morning. The vote came some 11 years after Congress voted to approve the use of force to remove Iraq from occupied Kuwait. That time, with an international coalition already in place, the margin was much closer: 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

According to Shuster, this resolution gives Hussein a clear and decisive choice.

“This resolution has one simple purpose: to give Saddam Hussein and his regime a clear choice: Allow complete and unfettered inspections or face the consequences of military action,” Shuster said.

And although the resolution emphasizes the exhaustion of diplomatic measures, it does grant President Bush the power to act with or without the support of the United Nations.

“In this case, the dangers of inaction are far too great, and Saddam Hussein poses far too great a risk for the United States and the world to do nothing,” Shuster said.

While U.S. Rep. John Murtha agrees that Hussein does pose a threat, he is less enthusiastic about the prospects of using force against Iraq.

“Obviously, we have reason to be concerned about Saddam Hussein. There is no question that he’s a real threat to us and we need to make sure he’s not developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to use against us or against other nations in the Middle East,” the Johnstown Democrat said. But the congressman noted that he has concerns about taking military action against Iraq.

Fellow Democrat Frank Mascara, who also voted in favor of the resolution, said he, like Murtha, was troubled over the vote but wanted to show a unified front against Hussein.

“We should continue to explore diplomacy and also see whether the United Nations will introduce a resolution that is a little more binding than the resolution that was passed 11 years ago, which Saddam Hussein continues to ignore,” said Mascara of Charleroi. “War should be a last resort. While I don’t want to put our young men and women in harm’s way, I do want to send a message to Saddam Hussein that we mean business and we are united.”

Murtha said he has four major concerns about military action against Iraq.

He said an attack could sidetrack the war on terrorism and could require at least 200,000 troops and $40 billion in funding to support the campaign. Murtha also noted that the United States needs the support of Iraq’s neighbors before force is used and that if America attacks Iraq, the odd counterbalance that exists between Iraq and Iran could crumble, destabilizing the entire region.

“Right now, Iran and Iraq seem to balance each other out and Iran has been relatively quiet,” Murtha said. “But if we destabilize Iraq, that creates a big opening for Iran to start throwing its weight around the region.”

Joe Heim, a political science professor at California University of Pennsylvania, said he agrees with Murtha’s assessment but foresees a much greater problem if the Iraqi regime is destroyed.

Heim said that if Iraq is defeated and the United States topples Saddam Hussein, a subsequent strong man would emerge. Heim said the Iraqi people eventually would overthrow this new leader and that Iraq would become an Islamic state and unify with Iran, a scenario that Heim said has endless bad possibilities. He theorized that the country could become a breeding ground for terrorists and that the new Islamic state could take over Pakistan, a country that already possesses nuclear weapons.

“We are afraid of Saddam Hussein trying to get nuclear weapons; then you would have a Pakistan Islamic government that already has nuclear weapons,” Heim said.

While Heim admits that these are just possibilities if an attack takes place, the outcome of a pre-emptive, unilateral strike without the United Nations support is not a question.

“We don’t nee the U.N. to topple Hussein. We can do it ourselves, but we are going to need the U.N. to run the place after it’s toppled,” Heim said.

Heim, who was a member of former Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s Mideast policy research staff, said that although the United States would win a war against Iraq handily without any U.N. input, said he thinks that support is necessary to prevent other pre-emptive strikes from taking place.

If the United States sets the precedent, Heim questions what would stop other strikes from happening, like China invading Taiwan. While Heim believes America needs the United Nations support for diplomatic reasons, he doesn’t think the chances of gaining that support are good.

“France, Russia and China want inspection but they do not want regime change,” Heim said. “So, fundamentally, they have a different outlook than we do, and I don’t think Bush is going to get support through the U.N. Hussein is a bad man, but he doesn’t affect them.”

Heim also said that support from Iraq’s neighbors and the Iraqi people will be hard to achieve.

“In 1991 we told the people of Iraq, ‘Rise up against Saddam and we will stand with you,’ and they did and we didn’t. That’s why no one wants to work with us. No one trusts us,” he said.

In the end, Heim said, that while he agrees with common views of Hussein as a brutal dictator, one question remains: “Whether you think it’s moral or right, the question still remains, ‘What comes after that?'”