THE REGION BY BARRY RUBIN: Questions of resolution and restraint
The two key dates that determine whether or not - or when and how - the United States attacks Iraq are December 8 and December 23.
On December 8, Iraq will announce what it claims to have in terms of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), missiles, basic tools for building nuclear bombs, and chemical or biological warfare capability. Presumably, Baghdad will claim that it has nothing at all. Most observers will find this statement unbelievable.
This event might well be followed by a dramatic US press conference in which satellite and spy-plane photographs, along with detailed intelligence, are presented to show that Baghdad's claim is a lie. President George W. Bush would say that this total denial shows Iraq has no intention of cooperating with the inspections.
After all, if it denies that any WMD exists, how can the regime afford to let the inspectors find anything? Thus it must do everything possible and necessary to ensure the inspectors cannot function effectively.
Perhaps the US would then request a UN Security Council resolution finding Iraq to be in "material breach" of its promise to cooperate.
The response of the rest of the world? Presumably, most countries would sigh and say what else can be expected? Let the inspectors have a chance and see what they can find nevertheless.
Wouldn't a total misrepresentation by Iraq constitute a major breaking of its commitments to tell the truth and cooperate in eliminating all WMD?
Obviously, yes. But to admit that would commit the UN to go to war with Iraq - or at least accept that the US, Britain, Kuwait, and others will do so.
Of course Iraq could admit to having some WMD supplies and quickly help the inspectors locate and dispose of these items. If so, it would be praised for its candor and cooperation, no matter how small a proportion of weaponry was involved. But since Iraqi officials have already repeatedly denied any WMD capability, it is hard to believe they will reverse their position.
Then comes December 23. On that day, the UN inspection agency provides its first report on the new round of investigations into Iraqi WMD. Presumably, they will report that not much has happened yet, that nothing has been found, and that Iraq is cooperating to a reasonable extent.
Those countries at the UN eagerly seeking to avert a conflict would grasp this report with loud applause. And it would be very difficult for the US to justify a war on Iraq.
Under these conditions the problem for Bush would not be merely that most of the world's leading states did not desire to join an attack on Iraq, but that they would actively oppose and criticize such a move. The US would not merely be acting unilaterally, but from a position of isolation - tough even for a determined US president.
Unless Iraqi president Saddam Hussein makes some dramatic move to force the world's opposition - massive sabotage of the inspections, the discovery of large hidden stocks of WMD materiel, some aggressive military move - he might well succeed in outmaneuvering the US. Of course, Bush could go ahead and attack no matter what the international situation, yet the odds of his doing so would decline steeply.
A KEY element here is the timetable. If it is true that the US does not prefer to fight during Iraq's long, hot summer, there will be a rapidly closing deadline for starting an offensive.
As of now, given the lack of US troops and equipment on the spot, one might suggest that no war could begin before January 15. If the summer ban holds true, it would have to begin before March 1. That's a very narrow window, and the days will pass quickly.
Another important, and secret, element is whether the administration would consider an autumn launching date. By around September, for example, the inspectors might have found a lot more hidden stuff and Saddam might have grown impatient with being the nice guy in front of those pesky and meddlesome foreigners. Perhaps some defector will spill the beans, as happened almost a decade ago, and reveal the location of lots of WMD loot.
But Bush does not want to be engaged in war too close to the presidential election, which might end in November 2004 but sort of begins in December 2003. That attitude is to his credit, as he neither wants to play politics with war nor be perceived as doing so. Yet an autumn war could be possible.
The situation leaves three possible ways for the US to claim victory. First, of course, is a military offensive that overthrows Saddam.
Second is an option much spoken about, but very unlikely, that of an internal upheaval overthrowing him.
Third would be for the US to say that by focusing the world's attention on Iraq, by maintaining sanctions and restarting inspections, the US has contained the Iraqi leader. These measures, whatever their shortcomings, would certainly delay Iraq's ability to obtain WMD capacity by some years.
Bush could even run for reelection promising to finish the job in his second term.
Some people have said Bush will not win a presidential election if Saddam is still in power. That seems totally wrong. After all, many would be relieved at Bush's restraint, and the Democrats are hardly going to charge him with being too soft for not going to war.
On the contrary, they will lose an issue which might be used to criticize him. In that event, of course, Bush would be judged on other issues. But it should be remembered that his father won the war, then lost the election
jpost.com |
