Lighting the Fuse
Late last year, most pundits were speculating about the diplomatic "trigger" that the Bush administration might use to justify a war. There was talk of how the UN resolution calling for Iraq to disarm held traps, and of Washington's manipulation of the arms inspections process.
Thursday, it became painfully obvious that the only trigger is the one in President Bush's mind.
Speaking at a rare prime-time White House press conference, Bush declared that he will demand the UN Security Council vote within days on a US resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq -- even if it is doomed to fail. And if it does fail, Bush says, the US will have no qualms about invading Iraq, anyway.
Of course, Bush insisted that he has yet to pull that mental trigger. But several British papers dispute that claim, reporting that the president made the decision this week. Citing unnamed sources in the British government, the Daily Express, for one, reported that the US attack will begin on March 13 with massive airstrikes, followed by a land invasion on March 17.
Columnist Trevor Kavanagh of the British tabloid The Sun -- which has consistently editorialized in favor of war -- suggests that a detailed timetable leading up to invasion has already been set: As soon as the Security Council votes (most likely rejecting the Anglo-American war resolution), Bush will deliver an ultimatum to Iraq, giving the country just three days to disarm completely. As soon as the three days have passed (assuming that Baghdad cannot meet such a vague demand in 72 hours), the invasion will begin. What's more, Kavanagh asserts, the ultimatum and the order to invade will come even if the US resolution is killed through a veto.
So why is Bush even bothering with a UN vote, if its outcome will have absolutely no bearing on his decision? Well, the US could still twist enough arms and dangle enough aid to win the support of a majority of Security Council delegates. And, as the London Times reports, even a failed attempt to gain UN support would provide some minimal diplomatic cover to Washington's beleaguered European allies, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"A British defence source said: 'There is no question that, militarily, the Americans could start a war this weekend.'
However, the source added: 'There is still a lot of politics to get sorted out. President Bush knows that for the sake of his chief ally, Tony Blair, every diplomatic effort has to be made to try and ensure legitimate cover for military force. He owes that to the Prime Minister.'"
Meanwhile, on the home front, The St. Paul Pioneer Press, predictably citing unnamed administration officials, reports that US military and intelligence officials have already launched an operation to pave the way for war by hunting down "an estimated 300 Iraqi agents in the United States and more than 50 other countries."
"The operation is aimed at known and suspected intelligence officers in Iraqi diplomatic missions and at other Iraqis believed to be operating undercover as businessmen, tourists or academics, said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity."
Finally -- and this may be the most telling information available -- bookies are giving no better than even odds on a war starting between March 10 and March 16. In other words, according to the professionals, war is a dead cert.
After the War ... What?
While just about everybody is predicting that the bombs will start falling in a matter of days, nobody seems to know what's going to happen in Iraq when the bloodshed ends. A US military occupation of Iraq is certain, but nobody in Washington is willing to say for how long. And, while While House official insist they want to see a blossoming of democracy in conquered Iraq, administration insiders still can't agree on who to impose as the titular head of that "democracy."
Toby Harnden of the British daily The Telegraph reports that, having failed in its bid to secure multilateral support for war, and having lost its fight to make the goal of a war disarmament and not regime change, the State Department is now back to "leading the attempt to stop the Pentagon installing Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, as interim leader of Iraq."
In fact, Harnden writes, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other State Department officials are pushing for the United Nations to be given a "key role" in the administration's post-Saddam plans -- a move Harnden says has "infuriated those in the Pentagon and White House who regard the UN as irrelevant."
The State Department officials are reportedly arguing that a UN presence in Iraq would counter claims that the US is seeking to impose a Pax Americana throughout the region. In much of the world, those claims are being given far more credence than the president's claims that an invasion would 'liberate' the Iraqi people and allow democracy to flourish. Haroon Siddiqui, writing in the Toronto Star, certainly doesn't see any reason to believe Bush.
"These grand promises would be more convincing had Bush shown some respect for the free and democratic will of the world against his war; had America not been cavorting with the most repressive regimes in the region, including Saddam Hussein's at one time; had America not been perpetuating the medieval monarchy in Kuwait even after liberating it from Iraqi occupation; and had the president's father, George W.H. Bush, not made an equally empty pledge of Mideast peace on the eve of the 1991."
The Kids Are Alright
If war does start next week, don't blame the tens of thousands of high school and college students who walked out of classes and into the streets to protest this week. In the US alone, students from more than 300 schools participated in the protest, while thousands more in Great Britain, Sweden, Spain, and Australia joined in.
In California, activists said they hoped the student protests were " a sign of an emerging antiwar movement for a new generation," the Los Angeles Times reports. In fact, at least one expert on student activism, UCLA education professor Robert A. Rhoads, told the Times that the protests were unprecedented, coming as they did "as the war is still being organized, not after the fact."
In London, protesters staged a sit-in outside Prime Minister Tony Blair's official residentce, and prevented Blair from leaving the House of Commons. And in Australia, thousands of students marched through the streets of Sydney.
So how did the country's hawkish leaders respond? Well, Australian Prime Minister John Howard declared that the students should have stayed in school, and the deputy director-general of education in the Australian state of New South Wales worried that the protesting students would be open to "manipulation by extremist groups," the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
"The claim was rejected by protest organiser Simon Butler, from the Books not Bombs coalition of students. 'Students are certainly old enough to make their own decisions and know enough about the war and the issues behind it,' he said."
motherjones.com |
