Some questions about war with Iraq
_____________________________________________________
Let's think before we attack Iraq
By James O. Goldsborough
Columnist
The San Diego Union-Tribune
August 5, 2002
The Bush administration is moving coyly toward war with Iraq. A year from now, we will look back on this period as we now look back on the origins of the Vietnam war: Nobody caring much, and suddenly we are in up to our necks.
President Bush's coyness about his intentions – "no plans are on my desk" – should not conceal what is happening. The machine is in motion, leaks of war plans abound, Senate hearings have begun, and Bush does not miss an opportunity to repeat that Saddam Hussein must go.
President Johnson saw the trap when it was too late. "I was bound to be crucified either way I moved," he said later. Bush is caught in the Johnson trap. If he picks up the marker now, he undermines America's credibility, to say nothing of his own.
Last week's hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were unsatisfying. Committee Chairman Joseph Biden made the hearings less about the wisdom of war than the costs of war. We heard little opposition to the idea itself. Hearings will resume after Labor Day, and perhaps we will hear more enlightened testimony.
It would be nice to know why we will go to war with Iraq this time.
Some witnesses said because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.
But he had them in 1991, too.
Some said because he is a menace to regional stability.
But so are Iran, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's the Middle East.
Some said so Iraqi emigrés can replace Saddam.
But will Iraqis accept emigrés?
Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, a curious witness by any standard, said because "Saddam is a horrible beast and must go."
A "horrible beast" standard would have us fighting many wars, but at least helps explain Bush's motivation. If events aren't driving Bush policy, then it must be people. Bush's father tried to kill the horrible beast, and the horrible beast tried to kill Bush's father. Sons don't forget.
If nothing else, the Senate hearings pointed to the problem of a "pre-emptive" war. We will be invading Baghdad not because of what Saddam is doing, but because of who he is. We will be changing a proven 10-year-old policy of containment for an unproven policy of regime change.
The putative rationale for Bush's war is Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has had chemical and biological weapons for two decades and may be working on nuclear weapons, though expert testimony on Iraq's nuclear capability at the Senate hearings was divided.
Iraq refuses to comply with 1991 post-Gulf War resolutions that require it to allow U.N. arms inspectors into the country. Those inspections ended in 1998 following published reports that some inspectors were connected to Western intelligence and were passing information to Israel.
The United Nations has been talking for months with Iraq about the return of inspectors, and Saddam wants more talk. The problem is, with Bush promising war, Saddam is not likely to want inspectors combing over his arms sites. Inspections are only likely if Bush drops his blustering.
There is no good answer to the question – why now? Saddam has long had chemical and biological weapons, and may be working on a nuclear bomb, though U.N. inspectors gave him a clean bill of health on nuclear weapons four years ago.
Are weapons a casus belli? In the region, Pakistan, India, Russia and Israel have nuclear arms, and Russia is helping Iran with a reactor, from which nuclear matter can be diverted.
It is the horrible beast standard. Other nations can be deterred or contained, but not Saddam. Saddam might attack, say, Kuwait, and then warn, say, America, to stay out by threatening to use his weapons of mass destruction.
The soundest advice during the hearings came from Anthony Cordesman, a former defense official. While not being gung-ho for attack, like Weinberger, or gung-ho against, like Morton Halperin, another former official, Cordesman carefully listed the dangers of making things worse.
He pointed out that the 10-year policy of containment of Iraq had not failed, that a new war would cost billions of dollars, take hundreds of thousands of troops, require help from friends and allies (which has not been offered) and a commitment to stay on in the region for years at unknown cost. He warned against "armchair" decisions taken from Washington.
Bush, the presidential candidate who criticized his predecessor for undertaking "nation-building" in places like Somalia, Bosnia and Haiti, has set the country on something far larger than nation-building. He is headed for region-building.
The destabilization to follow the invasion, the hostility created through what Colin Powell has called a U.S. "proconsulship" in Iraq, the incitement to terrorism and the cost of operations to Iraqi civilians and American troops are all incalculable.
Will deposing Saddam win the war?
Does Bush know about the thousands of Iraqi clerics now in exile in Qom (Iran)? Will things be better when they take Saddam's place? Do we need another Islamic Republic?
_____________________________
James O. Goldsborough is foreign affairs columnist for The San Diego Union-Tribune and a member of the newspaper's editorial board, specializing in international issues.
Goldsborough joined the San Diego Tribune as the editorial page editor in 1991. In 1992, he became the Union-Tribune's foreign affairs columnist. Prior to joining the newspaper, Goldsborough worked at the San Jose Mercury News as associate editor for seven years.
Goldsborough spent 15 years in Europe as a correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune, the International Herald Tribune and Newsweek Magazine. He is a former Edward R. Murrow Fellow at the Council on Foreign relations and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment.
signonsandiego.com |
