The Motivations for War
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Columnist
The Washington Post
Friday, September 20, 2002
It is absurd to say that the Bush administration's Iraq policy is driven largely by this November's elections. It is equally absurd to deny that President Bush and his party are playing this issue for political gain and that the buildup to war has come at an extremely convenient time for Republicans.
The president's decision yesterday to ask Congress for the broad authority to wage war on Saddam Hussein, with or without the United Nations, will only aggravate hard feelings in Democratic ranks -- even though Bush is likely to get what he wants. Many Democrats have been arguing for a resolution supporting the demands Bush made at the United Nations and urging the very sort of tough U.N. action against Hussein the administration is seeking.
Though Bush denied yesterday that he is seeking a congressional blank check, he is asking Democrats who would support a war under the right conditions to give him authority to wage war under any conditions. This could eventually push Congress out of the essential debates: What is the best way to wage this war? How long will the United States need to occupy Iraq? How serious are we about building a democratic -- or, at least, more democratic -- post-Hussein regime? Will even asking such questions become politically dangerous now that the president has simplified the choice to being either with him or against him?
Let's first dismiss the charge that the current move against Iraq is only about Republican electoral chances this fall. The Iraq hawks in the administration were committed to toppling Hussein long ago -- in most cases, before Sept. 11. That the new focus might help Republicans in the elections is, for the hawks, simply a bonus. And if the elections can be used to pressure Democrats to vote for war, so much the better.
But the president and Republicans haven't been shy about using the prospect of war to improve their chances in the elections. Republican candidates in South Dakota, Minnesota and New Mexico are already deploying soft-on-Iraq charges against their Democratic opponents, and Republican strategists are promising more of the same elsewhere.
It's also abundantly clear that pushing war to the center of the news shoves the Democrats' issues to the side. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's broad attack Wednesday on the administration's economic record might have been big news under other circumstances. It became a sideshow.
None of this proves that the motivations behind the current war buildup are political. But its sheer political convenience feeds the opposition's doubts. The president himself did not ease those doubts with his remarkable criticism last week of members of Congress whom he characterized as saying, "I think I'm going to wait for the United Nations to make a decision." Bush went on: "It seems like to me that if you're representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what's best for the United States. If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, 'Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "
A president seeking a unified nation does himself no good by distorting the arguments of others -- or by obliquely accusing them of failing to act in the interests of the United States. After all, the core argument of those who want to build a broad coalition is that doing so is in the national interest. Building an anti-Hussein alliance in association with the United Nations, says Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, could "diffuse negative reactions" to the war abroad and would also guarantee that "the long-term commitment [to Iraq] once Hussein is gone would be a shared commitment."
Sen. Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Armed Services Committee, offers this reading of Senate opinion: "There's a near consensus around here on supporting the president's request that the United Nations lay down a deadline, an ultimatum, and authorize the use of force to support it. Where there's a division here is over whether we should say we'll go it alone and whether we should say that at a moment when we're going to the United Nations and asking them to act."
Bush may win by playing hardball on the war resolution and perhaps in the elections. But playing hardball has its costs. A large majority of Americans share the president's goal of disarming Hussein. Bush will nurture that majority far more effectively if he dispels partisan suspicions -- and if he treats those who advocate a coalition approach to stopping Iraq as allies and not enemies.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
