<<...what is worrying is that while the Bush team is agreed about the need to be wild, it still seems divided on how crazy to get...>>
Bush wants to play chicken
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Friday, October 11, 2002
To be successful in dealing with Iraq, President Bush has to tread the most unusual line one could imagine for a statesman: He has to be wild, but not crazy.
How so? Well, it all goes back to a well-known concept in strategic theory: how to win a game of chicken between two drivers barreling head on at one another. If you are one of the drivers, the best way to win is, before the race even starts, to take out a screwdriver and very visibly unscrew your steering wheel and throw it out the window. The message to the other driver is: "Hey, I'd love to chicken out and get out of your way, but I just threw out my steering wheel -- so unless you want to crash head on, you better get out of the way."
We are witnessing a similar situation between Bush and Saddam Hussein. To push the United Nations, the Arabs and the Europeans to finally get serious about forcing Saddam to comply with the U.N. inspection resolutions, Bush had to appear wild -- as if he had thrown out America's steering wheel and was ready to invade Iraq tomorrow, alone. It was a very smart tactic, and if it produces a serious, united international front it may yet pressure Saddam into chickening out and allowing unconditional inspections. It may even turn up the pressure inside Iraq so much that someone there is emboldened to take Saddam down. You never know.
But in order to cultivate allies ready to keep the pressure on Saddam and, more important, to join a U.S.-led coalition to overthrow him if he continues to snub the United Nations, and even more important, to join with America in rebuilding Iraq after his government is ousted -- Bush has to be ready to take yes for an answer from Saddam, and give him a chance to comply. The Bush team has to be willing, if Saddam swerves aside by accepting unconditional inspections, not to also swerve off the road, chase his car and crash into it anyway. That is, Bush has to appear wild, but not crazy.
This is a very delicate strategy to pull off, and what is worrying is that while the Bush team is agreed about the need to be wild, it still seems divided on how crazy to get. Secretary of State Colin Powell appears ready to accept a yes from Saddam if he agrees to unconditional inspections. Even if we don't believe Saddam, even if we think he will cheat in the end, Powell seems to understand that we need to appear to be making a reasonable offer and taking yes for an answer -- if we want to retain allied and U.S. public support.
But to listen to Bush, Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, a "yes" from Saddam on inspections is not sufficient. In his speech Monday, Bush detailed a list of conditions -- that Saddam allow witnesses to illegal activities in Iraq to be interviewed outside the country, that he end the "persecution" of Iraq's civilians and stop "illicit trade."
These add-ons are a mistake. First of all, most of America's Arab allies persecute their people, and many Arabs, Turks and Europeans thrive from illicit trade with Iraq. We should be focusing on Saddam's non-compliance with U.N. inspection demands -- period. It's very unlikely that Saddam will comply, and that is what we want the world to see clearly. We don't want to give the Europeans or the Arabs a chance to muddy the waters by saying, "Well, of course Saddam wouldn't agree to inspections -- you asked him to commit suicide as well."
We don't want the allies to be able to say that the Bush team is wild and crazy, so let them go alone. Many allies would love that: America eliminates Saddam, the world gets to criticize the United States for being a bully and the United States has to pick up the bill for rebuilding Iraq. That's a European trifecta!
It's also a trap for America: If we invade Iraq alone, we own Iraq alone -- we own the responsibility of rebuilding it into a more progressive Arab state alone. As worthwhile a project as I believe that is, I don't think Americans are up for doing it alone, without U.N. cover or NATO allies to help pay. Bush knows that, which is why he stressed: "We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." I would say, "If we act with allies, we will prevail." If we can't, we should opt instead for aggressive containment (which means: Don't ask, don't tell, just bomb any suspicious Iraqi weapons sites).
It's OK to throw out your steering wheel as long as you remember you're driving without one. It's OK to be wild to spur our allies to join us. But if they won't, we must not go from wild to crazy and invade Iraq alone. Because the folks in the Middle East do crazy so much better than we do.
Thomas L. Friedman is foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times. Copyright 2002 New York Times News Service.
seattlepi.nwsource.com |
