Is Bush too ready to pounce on Iraq?
By Jules Witcover
Columnist
The Baltimore Sun
Originally published Dec 2, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Now that the inspections of Iraqi facilities in a search for weapons of mass destruction have begun, there seem to be two distinct aspirations among those awaiting reports.
Most of the United Nations apparently hope that the inspection teams will find no such weapons or the means to make them, but if they are found, that Saddam Hussein will then admit their existence and agree to their demolition.
The Bush administration appears to hope that he will continue to deny their existence even if strong evidence is discovered, thus vindicating the administration's sweeping allegations and providing the green light for American military action, with or without U.N. sanction and assistance.
The war-authorizing resolution negotiated by Secretary of State Colin Powell was intended to provide no wiggle room for the Iraqi regime. An obvious purpose of the provision requiring declaration by Dec. 8 of any prohibited weapons and facilities is to pin down Saddam Hussein at the outset.
But what if the U.N. inspections team headed by Swedish diplomat Hans Blix either drags its feet or comes up with a report that falls short of direct evidence of "material breach" of U.N. demands and a direct condemnation of Iraq?
President Bush, who never wanted to work through the U.N. in the first place, has indicated he won't wait for a mountain of evidence before declaring there has been a further material breach and attacking, with or without the U.N.
Many will say that the president, regardless of his early reluctance, did accede to those who preached that inspections be given a last chance and therefore will have diplomacy as well as morality on his side in acting. But unless the evidence of material breach is clear-cut, most of the international community is not likely to bolt out of the gate as Mr. Bush apparently wants.
It is true, probably thanks to Mr. Powell, the old soldier who is no hip-shooter, that the president has significantly backed away from his original insistence on "regime change" in Iraq, to disarmament. But it's also clear that the downshifting was a necessary diplomatic move to achieve U.N. acquiescence in the war resolution.
In getting the U.N. aboard, however, the administration has not quieted international concerns over the basic question of pre-emptive military action, especially in light of the far-reaching Bush strategy statement that signals future pre-emptive attacks against American-perceived terrorist threats anywhere.
Mr. Bush's assumption in that statement that America's status as the world's remaining superpower bestows on it greater peacekeeping responsibility can be seen as claiming for the United States alone the right of military pre-emption. What if other states, such as Pakistan or India, also claim it to justify a first strike under the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense"?
For this reason alone, it must be hoped that whatever the U.N. inspection team finds or fails to find produces a clearly persuasive report that generates solid U.N. backing for whatever action is warranted. It would be a mistake for President Bush to take any questionable evidence of material breach to send the planes, missiles and men against Iraq.
How he responds will demonstrate whether he went to the U.N. in the first place only for show, or whether he appreciates the importance of solidarity with the world community -- and respect for international law -- in seeking Iraqi disarmament.
Although Mr. Bush, again after first resisting, did go to Congress and obtain war authorization, it should not be forgotten, either, that the Constitution still states explicitly that "Congress shall have power ... to declare war." Those who believe the president in the era of terrorism should have this power ought to seek a constitutional amendment, not dance around the matter. Such a debate, not now but later, would be an enlightening exercise for the country.
_________________________________________________________
Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun
sunspot.net |
