Had another incident occurred that originated in Iraq, he would have had full and unquestioned cause for war. The French would undoubtedly grumbled, but even they would have had to support military action in Iraq. The NATO Military Council voted to support the war in Afghanistan. France withdrew from the military part of NATO long ago (nice way of getting a free ride) and didn't get dragged in. In a second instance, they could well have been pushed to the wall and told they were either in or out of NATO.
NATO support would also mean significant help, miltary and financial, from the rest of NATO. (Monaco, of course, once again gets a free ride.) We wouldn't be stuck alone with bils in the tens of billions of dollars a year.
If you looked at the evidence the US presented to justify the war in Iraq, much was lacking. It was a rather weak case- -nothing like, say, the photos the US presented at the UN to justify the Cuban Blockade. Where are those WMDs? And who made the US the world's cop? If the UN wanted 1441 enforced, why wouldn't it vote to use military action to do it? Who are we to say which resolutions get enforced and which don't?
Yeah, Bush would have gotten criticism either way. As it is, he gets it for unjustified aggression and gets little support from other nations. If he waited for a second incident, he might be criticized for not action earlier (assuming the attack was Iraq-based, which is questionable), but he would not face the current charges. |
