{
  "id": "RL31607",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31607",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 101838,
      "date": "2002-10-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:03:18.163941",
      "title": "Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate",
      "summary": "The debate over whether, when, and how to prosecute a major U.S. military intervention in Iraq\nand\ndepose Saddam Hussein is complex, despite a general consensus in Washington that the world would\nbe much better off if Hussein were not in power. Although most U.S. observers, for a variety of\nreasons, would prefer some degree of allied or U.N. support for military intervention in Iraq, some\nobservers believe that the United States should act unilaterally even without such multilateral\nsupport. Some commentators argue for a stronger, more committed version of the current policy\napproach toward Iraq and leave war as a decision to reach later, only after exhausting additional\nmeans of dealing with Hussein's regime.\n  A number of key questions are raised in this debate, such as: 1) is war on Iraq linked to the war\non terrorism and to the Arab-Israeli dispute; 2) what effect will a war against Iraq have on the war\nagainst terrorism; 3) are there unintended consequences of warfare, especially in this region of the\nworld; 4) what is the long-term political and financial commitment likely to accompany regime\nchange and possible democratization in this highly divided, ethnically diverse country; 5) what are\nthe international consequences (e.g., to European allies, Russia, and the world community) of any\nU.S. strategy that emphasizes unilateralism or multilateralism; 6) to what degree is U.N. or\ncongressional support required or even needed; and 7) what are the ramifications of not taking\naction to ensure that Iraq is not acquiring weapons of mass destruction?\n  On October 10th, after a month of debate, the House passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res 114)\nthat authorizes the use of force against Iraq and requires the Bush Administration to report to\nCongress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before or within 48 hours after military action\nhas begun. The President is also required to submit a progress report to Congress at least every 60\ndays. A few hours after the House vote, on October 11th, the Senate passed the joint resolution. \nPresident Bush passed this into law on October 16, 2002 ( P.L. 107-243 ).\n  This report identifies selected statements by Bush Administration officials, former U.S.\ngovernment officials, columnists, and academic and think-tank policy analysts who have addressed\nthe issue of intervention in Iraq and summarizes some of their main arguments. Readers should note\nthat this is a rapidly evolving policy area, and the views of those cited may change since the time of\ntheir referenced statements. This report will not be updated. \n  For further reading, see CRS Report RS21325,  Iraq: Divergent Views on Military\n Action , by\nAlfred Prados, and  CRS Report RL31339 ,  Iraq: U.S. Efforts to Change the Regime , by\nKenneth\nKatzman.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL31607",
          "sha1": "69d05300e4f64653f2c140a096e7c32a68a14881",
          "filename": "files/20021016_RL31607_69d05300e4f64653f2c140a096e7c32a68a14881.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31607",
          "sha1": "0a3d5b661ed5d04f1c301638169a93fa95a30ddf",
          "filename": "files/20021016_RL31607_0a3d5b661ed5d04f1c301638169a93fa95a30ddf.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}