Waiting Game
by the Editors
tnr.com
The debate over war with Iraq centers on means rather than ends. Unlike Vietnam, where opponents questioned whether the goal of repelling Hanoi's aggression was worth the price in blood, nearly all war critics today concede the necessity of the goal at hand--disarming Iraq. Yet they insist it can be achieved at a lower cost, either by forcing Saddam Hussein to relinquish his weapons peacefully or by obtaining U.N. approval before invading. Those who oppose war are not mistaken to think that either outcome would be preferable to fighting without the imprimatur of the Security Council. Where they go wrong is in believing that those outcomes remain possible. The case for waiting--a case that still appeals to a depressingly large number of liberals--thus rests upon a delusion.
Consider voluntary disarmament. The best way to get Saddam to relinquish his weapons was for the United Nations to draw a line in the sand, in the form of Resolution 1441, and back it up with the threat of force. Alas, the Iraqi dictator has stomped over that line. He failed, weapons inspectors say, to submit a full accounting of proscribed weapons, as he was required to do under 1441. His scientists--no doubt threatened by his secret police--have refused to be interviewed outside the country or have insisted upon tape-recording their interviews. Hans Blix has been reduced to praising Iraq for partial compliance.
War opponents describe this state of affairs as "progress." In fact, it's just the opposite. When crafting Resolution 1441 last November, Russia and France worried that the United States would declare war over some ultra-technical violation. Today, Iraq is allowed to engage without sanction in substantive violations that not even France countenanced three months ago. Resolution 1441 is effectively a dead letter--a development that has only fed Saddam's confidence. As The Washington Post reported last month, "Saddam Hussein's government, apparently emboldened by antiwar sentiment at the U.N. Security Council and in worldwide street protests, has not followed through on its promises of increased cooperation with U.N. arms inspectors." This further degradation of the U.N.'s credibility has erased any slim possibility that the mere threat of force might compel Iraq to disarm.
Some war opponents have therefore retreated to a fallback argument: Even if Iraq never disarms completely, at least the presence of inspectors will keep it from expanding its arsenal. "What can [Saddam] get away with?" Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean asked recently, "as long as Iraq is inspected, under constant surveillance, surrounded, grounded because of no-fly zones?" But this assertion rests upon an ignorance of history. In the 1990s, while UNSCOM, considered by many weapons experts to be more aggressive than the current inspections regime, prowled Iraq, inspectors and American intelligence were convinced the Iraqi nuclear program had been eradicated. Only a series of high-profile defections--a lucky break unlikely to recur--revealed that Saddam had been working toward a bomb under their noses. And, even if today's inspections are working, history suggests that the minute the threat of force recedes, Saddam will end even his current minimal compliance. Many liberals complain that war will end the inspections, but, if we reach the summer, when war is deemed impossible, it is a sure bet that Saddam will end them himself.
Just as naive is the hope that further delay will convince the Security Council to authorize force. Many Democrats have presented the dearth of international support as essentially a conscious choice by President Bush. As Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said this week, "The only way to do this and do it right is through the auspices of the U.N. and an international coalition. I think in both cases this administration has fallen short." Yet the Bush administration has demonstrated more interest in the Security Council than the Security Council has demonstrated in Iraqi disarmament. For a dozen years, France and Russia fought to weaken inspections and resisted even modest punishments of Iraq. The last few months have followed the same pattern. When Iraq withholds full cooperation from inspectors, Paris and Moscow are unmoved because this violation falls short of a "smoking gun." When a breakthrough does occur, such as the discovery of the Al-Samoud missiles, they see it as evidence that inspections are working.
It's now clear that the Security Council endorsed Resolution 1441 only as a gambit to avoid war. French President Jacques Chirac revealed perhaps more than he intended last week when he blurted out that "disarmament must happen peacefully." This gives the game away. Disarmament could only come about either through war or the threat of war. If disarmament must be peaceful, then there will be no disarmament. And, when Democrats insist that war must have U.N. approval, they are attaching themselves to the French position. It may seem they are arguing for a certain means, but in fact they are arguing for an end.
the Editors |
