WASHINGTON -- The claims of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney that Iraq might join with terrorists to strike the United States at any time are far-fetched. Very little about the historical record or current intelligence lends credence to that view. It cannot be fully dismissed as a possibility, but it appears to be a remote one at worst. There is a serious argument for overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but it is not as conclusive as Rumsfeld and Cheney argue, and it has more to do with how an Iraqi nuclear weapon might change Hussein's behavior in the region than with terrorism.
Consider the track record. Hussein has not used weapons of mass destruction since the 1980s -- a time when he knew the U.S. would turn a blind eye to any such action in any event. During all times since Desert Storm he has rightly recognized that to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., his neighbors or even his own minority populations would almost surely lead to his own destruction. Hence he has refrained.
Hussein's other behavior is also consistent with the picture of a tyrant who, however evil he may be, values his own life more than the pursuit of adventure or aggrandizement. He moved several brigades of forces south toward Kuwait in 1994, at a time when the Clinton administration seemed distracted and feckless to many, yet backed off when then-U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry announced the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. forces in Operation Vigilant Warrior. He abstained from attacking Kurdish groups in the north until their own bickering gave him a brief opportunity to do so in 1996, but has again respected that region as a U.S.-protected safe haven since the Kurds re-established their alliance.