Bush and Strategic Preemption
By Geoffrey
Kemp
From the June 16, 2002 edition of Al-Ittihad
The suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi on June 14th is the second such attack on Western targets in Pakistan in the past two months. The earlier attack on May 8 killing 11 French citizens working as contractors on a Pakistani submarine program demonstrated very clearly that this form of warfare is not unique to the Middle East and the United States. The latest attack comes only days after the United States arrested Abdullah al Muhajir, an American citizen returning to Chicago from Pakistan, on the grounds that he might have been working with Al Qaeda and planning to detonate a radiological bomb in an American city.
The threat of suicide bombers armed with weapons of mass destruction is the main reason President Bush has announced a much more aggressive U.S. counter-terrorism policy including the need to use force first, without warning, against would be aggressors.
Where and when the United States will use preemptive force is a matter of considerable speculation. Undoubtedly President Musharraf of Pakistan is aware that if he is unable to exercise greater control over terrorists operating in Pakistan, both India and the United States may have to take military action against terrorist sanctuaries. Some have speculated that the President’s new policy, announced in a speech to United States Military Academy cadets at West Point on June 7, could cover contingencies to attack Hezbollah forces in Lebanon and Syria especially if neither Lebanon nor Syria stop Hezbollah’s provocative acts against Israel which are designed to derail U.S. diplomatic activity to end the violence. Hezbollah, in the past, has been responsible for the deaths of many Americans and Syria, it is known, has a well developed chemical weapons program.
However, the most likely candidate for U.S. preemptive action remains Saddam Hussein. Bush is convinced that so long as Saddam rules Iraq America will not be safe. Yet he is undecided when and how to take action against the Baghdad regime. There are indications that while the U.S. military are nervous about a major assault against Iraq and have urged a conservative strategy upon the President, planning and physical preparations for military conflict are proceeding at pace. The dangers of not acting against Saddam Hussein are simple; eventually he will get hold of nuclear weapons and then the power equation in the Middle East will be radically changed. On the other hand, the dangers of acting against him if things go wrong must also be high on the President’s list of concerns. Furthermore anxiety concerning the state of play between Israel and the Palestinians is intense as Bush debates when and if to undertake a major diplomatic initiative to contain the violence. Other constraints against preemptive action against Iraq are that planning for the "day after Saddam" looks more and more awesome the more one contemplates the exercise. There is also an argument that if a new Arab-Israeli initiative were to begin as a result of American diplomatic efforts there would be strong voices arguing against a war in the Gulf until such time as negotiations have taken their course and reached a satisfactory conclusion.
All in all President Bush has much to contemplate as he prepares for the summer. His popularity remains high, but the economy remains shaky and confidence in the U.S. stock market is low. The first stirrings of criticism of his handling of the pre and post September 11th period are emerging as confusion over his homeland security policy and the role of the CIA and FBI in the counter-terrorism effort becomes more actively debated. More and more Democrats are attacking the President’s domestic agenda and are focusing on issues such as tax reform, health care and the environment. Once more it is fashionable to make jokes about the President on late night television.
Bush is getting conflicting advice from his senior staff, but in the end his is the only decision that counts. He remains convinced that the U.S. must act against regimes such as Iraq, but whether this will happen this year or after the November congressional elections is still a matter of debate.
