Nothing has happened to change the validity of arguments against the war:
Considering how cumbersome and long lasting the United States' global war on terrorism promises to be, the domestic debate on toppling Iraq’s Saddam Hussein sounds surreal.
The fight against terrorism has hardly begun. Much remains to be done in Afghanistan. But instead of focusing on this and other unfinished business abroad, Americans are witnessing the bizarre spectacle of Republican moderates and conservatives sparring over Iraq.
Ironically, as the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, the debate over attacking Iraq threatens the very legitimacy of the United States' response to international terrorism. Of course, how the rest of the world views the United States' evolving Iraq policy -- and our other foreign engagements -- apparently does not concern the administration. But it should.
The GOP moderates are correctly worried that war on Iraq will take America's attention away from the war on terrorism. Besides, they argue, despite its military superiority over Iraq, there is no way the United States will make a clean break right after toppling Saddam. An American occupation of Iraq while anti-Americanism in the region remains so intense may be a recipe for political disaster.
The superhawks within and outside the Bush administration, in contrast, remain focused on ousting Saddam. Their position was given a boost when the President kept repeating that he’s committed himself to the objective of toppling Saddam. Once the media took the bait and started covering the issue as a national debate, Bush complained about "churning" in the media, which his secretary of defense -- and Mr. Superhawk -- Donald Rumsfeld characterized as "media frenzy."
When two former officials from Bush senior's administration, former Secretary of State James Baker and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, opposed toppling Saddam, a new wrinkle emerged. It was rumored former President Bush also opposed taking military action against Iraq and had encouraged his former associates to go public. But the superhawks remained totally unfazed. Richard Perle, the head of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, dismissed Scowcroft's objection as "naïve."
The upside of this continuing debate is Americans are getting a broad overview of what’s at stake if their government decides to wage a war against Iraq. They will not experience the kind of confusion and lack of purpose that was prevalent as America expanded its involvement in Vietnam. But the downside is that the passage of time and a refusal to moderate his stance, President Bush has painted himself into a corner. He won’t be able to retreat without a major loss of face.
The larger issue that’s eclipsed by all the Iraq talk is what will happen to America's global war on terrorism if Bush orders the Pentagon to go after Saddam. The Pentagon, with or without congressional approval, will follow orders from their commander-in-chief. The public, on the other hand, has yet to be convinced that we should go to war.
The arguments put forth by the superhawks aren’t persuasive. Let us disabuse ourselves of the silly proposition that Saddam is somehow connected to Al Qaeda or even global terrorism. The butcher of Baghdad is a lot of nasty things, but he is not stupid. He knows how eager the United States has been about "keeping him in the box" since the Gulf War of 1991 ended. American intelligence has failed to find any link between Saddam and terrorism.
But don't tell that to Rumsfeld, who is busy finding new exagerations for his unequivocal commitment to attacking Iraq. He is not at all concerned about the lack of international support for that option. Dismissing global opposition to attacking Iraq, he recently said, "Leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters. Just as the leadership in the global war on terrorism has found some 90 nations to assist and cooperate."
Rumsfeld went on to draw parallels between President Bush's position toward Saddam Hussein and former Prime Minister Winston Churchill's warning about Adolf Hitler before World War II, saying, "It wasn't until each country got attacked that they said: 'Maybe Winston Churchill was right. Maybe that lone voice expressing concern about what was happening was right.'"
In the meantime, the Bush administration's focus on the war on terrorism in Afghanistan seems to have narrowly focused on the use of military force, as opposed to assisting the nation after decades of war. This shift in priorities has not gone unnoticed, especially by people near the potential frontline of a new Middle East war.
Respected Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid recently noted, "The effort to root out the last remnants of Al Qaeda, important to the United States, is utterly irrelevant to 99.9 percent of the Afghan people. They have more immediate concerns: establishing a viable central government, improving security, and initiating large-scale infrastructure improvements to repair the damage from more than two decades of civil war."
Just as the politico-economic conditions of Afghanistan and the neighboring Central Asian countries demand multilateral and multifaceted responses from the United States and other nations, so too does the ongoing global war on terrorism. These are the issues that ought to be at the forefront of America foreign policy -- not starting a new Middle Eastern war.
The United States can’t allow itself to go after Saddam and then militarily occupy Iraq for years without completely losing its momentum on defeating global terrorism. But that’s what the White House is doing -- and they’re doing it on the eve of the 9/11 anniversary. |
