On his domestic argument, the polls do support his position, though that support is declining as Republican opposition gathers voice
You wish, John. And Howard Raines wishes. However, most of the Republican opposition is not actually in opposition, as Thomas Oliphant (not notably a Republican) points out in today's Globe:
The 'doubts' of GOP elders on Iraq attack have been overstated
By Thomas Oliphant, 8/20/2002
WASHINGTON
IF THE GHOSTS of national security advisers past are what President Bush has to worry about as he stumbles toward a decision about Iraq, then he has nothing to worry about.
Through a combination of press oversimplification and partisan spin from opponents (and, ironically, proponents) of war, the impression has been created of widespread disagreement with the administration on the part of Republican and Democratic predecessors, including senior policy makers in the administration of Bush's father.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The people who have sat where Condoleezza Rice sits have questions and challenges for Bush. They do not, however, step forward as opponents of war but instead as advocates of war as a last resort, as opponents of war without allies, without laborious preparation of public opinion in this country and abroad, of war without careful planning for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Opponents of an attack on Iraq have attempted to portray Bush as beset by broad disagreement from within the Republican Party's foreign policy establishment. And hard-line proponents of war have portrayed those who have raised questions as appeasing naysayers, presumably allied with such other right-wing betes noires as Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Rubbish.
Most attention has been focused on the spoken and written words of Brent Scowcroft, Father Bush's national security adviser and a central architect of the Gulf War. While pseudo-Freudian babblers attempt to speculate about father-son relations, they overlook the fact that Scowcroft is anything but an opponent of military action. What Scowcroft has actually said is that if Saddam Hussein were to block a renewed, intrusive inspections program under UN auspices, his rejection could provide the persuasive reason for war that many claim the United States does not have. Compelling evidence that Saddam has acquired nuclear weapons capability could have a similar effect.
Those just happen to be the two most likely scenarios that could lead to war - with overwhelming public support, Scowcroft's included. His so-called objections are much more like cautions - that we must make sure the Middle East isn't further destabilized, that support for our worldwide struggle against terrorism is not diminished. He argues, in other words, for a comprehensive policy that includes a response to Iraq; what he opposes is a sudden, Iraq-only fixation.
Similarly, the cautions articulated by such figures as former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and retired General Wesley Clark, who led the campaign against Yugoslavia, emphasize the importance of a vigorous effort to recruit support from fellow members of the NATO alliance - both for any eventual war and for a multilateral approach to reconstruction after a war.
The most egregious misportrayals, however, involve former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the retiring House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas.
In his spoken and written words of late, Kissinger's only skeptical comments have involved the folly of going forward toward war without a clear commitment to a possibly lengthy and expensive nation-rebuilding effort inside Iraq. Beyond the postwar obligation, the bulk of Kissinger's commentary has consisted of an argument that preemptive war to block the potential use by a tyrant of a weapon of mass destruction is just and even prudent.
Even Armey's point has been misconstrued. He has concentrated on making a case that a sneak attack out of the blue will properly earn widespread condemnation abroad and at home - that even in the presence of modern, mass-killing weapons, such strikes go against American values. Yet the administration has been a driving force behind the scenes for the very public discussion about war in which Americans are now engaged. The chances of a sneak attack could be rated at virtually zero.
It is possible to argue that Bush should be more of a participant in this vital discussion than he has been to date, that the international conversation needs his voice trying to make the case in detail. But the White House has a point that Bush's full participation would imply that a decision to go to war had been made when it clearly has not been.
As the discussion proceeds, it is tempting to get shrill, but this topic is too important. And as it proceeds, it is also important not to mischaracterize other people's views to fit one's own. Bush has obstacles ahead, but the notion he has serious opponents in his own party on Iraq is simply inaccurate.
Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com
This story ran on page A19 of the Boston Globe on 8/20/2002.
boston.com |
