Bush’s Dangerous Obsessions
Iraq is one of them. But does the president understand what he’s getting America into?
msnbc.com
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
Sept. 13 — President Bush’s speech to the United Nations was great stagecraft. But was it wise statecraft? That’s the question being debated in the corridors of the Capitol, even though Congress has little choice but to back the president’s obsession with ridding the world of Saddam Hussein.
BUSH SET NO deadline for the United Nations to act, which left lawmakers wondering whether he would simultaneously seek a resolution from Congress backing military action in Iraq, using one body as leverage on the other. Bush went beyond calling for disarmament and inspection to invoke democracy and human values as future goals for Iraq. Since so few places in the Middle East subscribe to democratic values, a congressional aide thought the networks should “pan to the Saudi delegation to see if they’re snickering.”
When it comes to the selective application of values, Bush is a master. His rhetoric about dictators and weapons of mass destruction is compelling, but what about Iran and North Korea, the other countries in his axis of evil? What about Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and the way he terrorizes his people? What about India and Pakistan, who could blow up much of their region, along with themselves? Even if Saddam Hussein is an evil psychopath, is he crazy enough to annihilate himself, which is what would happen if he launched deadly weapons?
The more Bush talks, the more he gets tripped up with questions he can’t answer. So he suggests that anybody who disagrees with his strike-now-ask questions-later strategy is an appeaser. Likening the U.N.’s inability to enforce weapons inspections on Iraq to the failed League of Nations and the appeasement of Hitler is an argument designed to embarrass and humiliate the world body, not to shed light on a dangerous mission. “Bush needs to make a very precise case for pre-emptive military action,” says a Reagan-era ambassador to the region. “Otherwise this is the Vietnam syndrome all over again. I thought never again would we fight a war without the support of the American public.”
The first gulf war was supposed to set in motion a wave of democracy in the Middle East. It didn’t happen. It spawned Osama bin Laden, whose primary grievance is the continued presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. “There are so many things that can go wrong, even in success,” says the ambassador. A war would disrupt the flow of oil, and prices would spike up. Without Saddam, Iraq would become an American protectorate perhaps for decades. “Our economy doesn’t need billions more in war costs,” the ambassador continues, “unless the guy is planning to try to attack us. Then it’s worth the price.”
So far, in this veteran diplomat’s estimation, Bush has not made the case that Saddam has the capability to attack the United States, or that he is planning to carry out such an attack.
Bush fears that Saddam will supply weapons to the Al Qaeda network. “You can’t go to war on a fear,” counters the ambassador. “You can’t look at 190 countries [at the U.N.], and just say you’ll do this, unless you’ve got evidence he’s going to use weapons of mass destruction.”
The drumbeat of war has arrested the decline in Bush’s popularity ratings, and frozen the political landscape. A Democratic strategist says, “This could all be a striptease debate to frame the election on their terms. We’ve been hearing from the pollsters that if the election is a plebiscite on national security, the Republicans win. He who controls the debate controls the election. It’s hard not to be skeptical.” After some half-hearted efforts to put off any vote on Iraq until after the November election, Democrats are now resigned to Bush’s timetable, which is sooner than later, and before they go home to campaign.
Tucked into all the tough talk about Iraq, Bush extended an olive branch to the U.N., announcing that the United States will rejoin UNESCO, the cultural agency that the Reagan administration pulled out of 20 years ago. Conservatives regard UNESCO as a Marxist front and fret that Bush has gone soft in his bid for world support. But retiring Sen. Jesse Helms, no softie, has given his blessing to the move. This administration is so attentive to its conservative base that they must have come to the conclusion that the U.N. is a necessary evil. With Russia and China expected to abstain rather than exercise their veto on the Security Council, Bush is likely to get what he wants from the U.N., which will either buy time or put us one step closer to war, whichever Bush chooses.
That brings us to the ultimate question: Why would Bush take such a huge risk with the military, the economy and the map of the Middle East? A psychiatrist might be best equipped to answer that one. Before becoming president, Bush had been out of this country only a handful of times, and that was counting Mexico. Such limited exposure to the world is a rarity for somebody of his class and with his connections. And even though he was draft-age during the Vietnam War and in an academic environment where people were protesting, he seems remarkably untouched by the Vietnam experience. It’s as though he slept through that period, or wasn’t mature enough to grasp the enormity of the nation’s disillusionment with its leaders.
Bush approaches foreign policy as he approaches life, with a very narrow, Reaganesque view that something is either right or wrong. This moral clarity served him well in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when the gates of hell were wrenched open for all to see. But prosecuting a global war against terror is filled with moral ambiguities, shifting alliances and cold-eyed tradeoffs of risk and reward. Bush doesn’t want to be deterred by theoretical scenarios about how a good mission can turn bad. At consults with other leaders, he would be wise to at least maintain the fiction that he is feeling their pain even if he is only going through the motions. |
