What Do They Know And When Will They Tell Us?
Lead Editorial
Newsday
1/16/03
newsday.com
As more and more U.S. troops are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the prospect of an invasion of Iraq has taken on a grim sense of inevitability. But awar is not and should not be inevitable. And it certainly doesn’t need to be launched in a matter of days or weeks.
President George W. Bush has yet to make a compelling case to the nation or his allies for war against Iraq. Nor has he articulated in a convincing way the reasons why such a war must be waged now, instead of allowing United Nations inspectors time to determine whether Iraq has disarmed or can be rid of its weapons of mass destruction.
It would be irresponsible, arrogant and politically obtuse for Bush to rush into war without laying out a detailed case for why Saddam Hussein today poses an imminent threat to the nation and to the security of the Persian Gulf’s oil supply and why the best way to handle Hussein is through a war as opposed to robust containment.
If he can make the case, he must do it. If he is ready to go into battle, then the president must explain why the costs of going to war — in treasure and lives — are less than those of continuing the inspection regime with a credible threat of military— Continued from Preceding Page
force. For instance, has the administration adequately taken into account the possibility that if the United States attacks Iraq, Hussein, with his back to the wall, might well launch some kind of terror attack on the U.S. homeland with biological or chemical weapons ?
It is not enough for Bush to argue that Hussein should have voluntarily disarmed in the same manner as, for instance, South Africa. Of course, that would be preferable. But launching a war should be a last resort; if there are other ways of disarming Iraq they must be tried first.
Bush’s Gamble
Bush has been playing a risky game of chicken. He has gambled that, faced with the ominous military buildup under way — more than 150,000 U.S. troops already are in the Gulf — either Hussein will blink and fold or reluctant U.S. allies will resign themselves and go along with the war plans.
But the gamble may backfire, politically and strategically. Domestic and international unease at the prospect of war is rising by the week. In the latest polls, seven out of 10 Americans oppose a war with Iraq unless the United Nations gives its approval. In Europe and the Arab world, opposition rises to 90 percent or more.
The only way that Bush’s risky gamble could pay off and result in a decisive political victory for him would be Hussein’s improbable last- minute capitulation to the unrelenting military pressure Bush is putting on Iraq. But that pressure works both ways. If Iraq doesn’t give in, there will be equally unbearable pressure on Bush to use the troops he has deployed at great cost. A president who has put hundreds of thousands of troops in the field is a bit like someone who holds a hammer in his hand: Everything starts to look like a nail.
The international pressure on Bush to back off his war footing is mounting, and the administration has finally, if grudgingly, acknowledged it. On Friday, a possible compromise was shaping up as Britain and the United States seriously considered allowing UN inspections to continue in Iraq for several additional weeks. With such a compromise, Bush and his foreign policy team hope they will be able to make a stronger case with U.S. allies and domestic critics for military action if Hussein continues to prevaricate and quibble over details of the inspections — such as private interviews with Iraqi scientists.
But that compromise does not go far enough. There is an alternative, detailed in a report last week by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It would entail an extension of the intrusive UN inspections for as long as necessary — possibly up to a year longer — coupled with a continuing threat of imminent use of force if Hussein were to renege on his obligations.
Save Money, Save Lives
To make that threat credible, Bush would need to maintain a large U.S. military deployment in the Gulf for as long as inspections go on. It would be costly — it takes roughly $1 billion a week to keep 150,000 troops in the Gulf — but it would cost far less, in dollars and lives, than an all-out invasion of Iraq, which could drain the treasury of $100 billion to $200 billion, not counting the inevitable human casualties.
And there would be other, intangible costs. Bush would have to do some fancy rhetorical footwork to justify such a major shift in posture, risking support from the hard-liners in his party. Congressional grumbling over the open-ended costs of maintaining a large U.S. force in the Gulf would be a certainty. A protracted military deployment using reserve units would put severe strains on the families of those involved — their jobs, marriages may be imperiled.
But the political gains would be equally compelling. Bush would gain considerable stature, here and abroad. He could argue, legitimately, that the intense military pressure he has put and will maintain on Iraq will pay off with better compliance with inspections. By holding the threat of war in reserve, Bush will maintain the fragile unity of the veto-bearing powers on the UN Security Council, whose cooperation he will need for a military action if Iraq ultimately fails to satisfy disarmament requirements.
Containing Iraq
By showing determination coupled with patience, Bush would defuse much of the criticism his stubborn push to war has generated. Most important of all, he will ensure that, as long as inspections continue, backed up by a U.S. expeditionary force, Iraq will be effectively contained, unable to develop nuclear weapons or use chemical and biological weapons it might still have.
If the goal was to defuse Iraq’s threat to the region, it will have been achieved. And if Hussein continues to balk to the end and war becomes finally inevitable, then the world just might stand with the United States rather than against it.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc. |
