U.S. Attack Would Break from its Long-Standing Foreign Policy of Not Initiating Hostile Action

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- U.S. military action against Iraq would represent a break from the long-standing U.S. philosophy of not initiating hostile action, according to a University at Buffalo political science professor who studies war and conflict.

"Most democracies don't initiate conflict," says Michelle Benson, assistant professor of political science at UB. "In this case, however, President Bush likely feels that the ends justify the means. War may be the only way to oust Saddam from power and improve the lives of millions of Iraqi people who are suffering under his rule."

Benson's research shows that the most effective way to prevent war, and reduce the hostile actions of nations, is to encourage hostile nations to participate in world affairs. Given the scope and nature of U.S.-Iraqi relations over the past 10 years, Benson says it's not surprising that the U.S. perceives Iraq to be hostile or an unconstructive member of the international community.

"On the other hand, countries that have had regular relations with Iraq--such as Russia and France--do not perceive Iraq as being as hostile, which is probably one reason these countries do not support a U.S. invasion of Iraq," Benson says.

Benson thinks Saddam doesn't want a war, but she doubts he will take sufficient action to prevent one. Nor does she think its likely the U.S. will back down from attacking Iraq, even if the U.S. does not receive U.N. approval.

"There's an old adage that says 'once your sword is drawn, you must use it.' If the U.S. does not attack, many believe that it risks losing its credibility for future actions," she says.