The Republican Challenge to Bush
By Geoffrey
Kemp
From the August 18, 2002 edition of Al-Ittihad
The most ardent hard-liners in Washington who advocate early, decisive and, if necessary, unilateral military action to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein, received a serious challenge this week. A number of highly respected Republican supporters of President Bush have urged caution and more preparation before any precipitous use of force is considered.
Most significant was an opinion piece written in the Wall Street Journal on August 15, 2002 by Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Adviser to Presidents’ Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft argued that to go to war with Iraq without clear and demonstrable provocation, without the support of our key allies and without a clearly thought through plan of action in event of victory, could result in major setbacks for the United States in its war against terrorism. It could also precipitate regional turmoil and the United States could find itself, alone, in the midst of chaos. A few days earlier, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote a more nuanced article supporting the case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but arguing such action should not be the precedent for a new strategy of preemption against an open-ended list of potential enemies but a unique, one time event to deal with a unique and exceptionally dangerous threat. Kissinger urged that the President first exhaust all efforts at the United Nations to get a new tough mandate to put arms inspection teams into Baghdad. He also argued that the President must have the support of key allies, as well as a clearly articulated "day-after" strategy for the long-term stability of Iraq. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and Vietnam War hero, Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican – Nebraska), have also made cautionary statements as has House Republican leader Dick Armey. Senator Hagel has been particularly critical of civilian advisers close to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who seem to be the most vociferous in calling for war. It has been noted, with a certain irony, that many of the more aggressive civilian hard-liners have seen no service in the U.S. armed forces, but that many of the senior military personnel in the Department of Defense as well as Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, both Vietnam veterans with combat experience, are the ones urging restraint on how to deal with Iraq.
Those urging caution do not agree on all issues. For instance, Scowcroft argues that progress on resolving Arab-Israeli crisis must be a priority for regional stability. Kissinger argues the reverse: that removing the threat from Iraq is the priority and cannot be held hostage to progress in the Arab-Israeli front. And nobody in Washington disagrees with the premise that Saddam is a menace, is a threat to his neighbors and to the world, and that it is unacceptable for him to continue to defy UN Security Council resolutions, particularly those concerning weapons of mass destruction. On these issues, a majority of the American public and most of the governments of the European allies are in agreement. Here there is a serious disagreement with many of the Muslim countries who downplay the regional threat posed by Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.
The real potency of the criticism being leveled by Scowcroft and others is that they point out the potential downsides of military action against Iraq prior to more progress against al Qaeda and the emergence of a stable political regime in Afghanistan. Presently the situation in Afghanistan is so precarious that the assassination of either President Karzai or the former King of Afghanistan, who now lives in Kabul, could plunge the country into civil war. In addition, the critics of the neo-conservative hard-liners warn that unilateral war against Iraq could jeopardize the productive intelligence ties the United States has established with many different countries including Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and even Sudan in the battle to eliminate Al Qaeda. By casting their criticism in this context the challenge to Bush is particularly serious. It will likely mean Democrats who have been reluctant to speak out on Iraq for fear of being labeled either unpatriotic or "wimps" on military action, may now be emboldened to air their own concerns. Likewise one can expect a vigorous questioning of the American Middle East policy and its long term goals from the key U.S. ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose support is deemed so important for President Bush.
Nevertheless, if the President makes a strong, forceful, and convincing case for war and provides a well argued rationale not only for regime change but for a long term American presence in Iraq, he will get support from the Congress and the American public. But he has not made his case so far. Merely calling Saddam "evil" and evoking images of Europe’s appeasement of Hitler is not good enough. The best thing about the Scowcroft intervention is that it will stimulate a more serious and balanced debate. The arguments will intensify when the Congress returns from summer vacation in early September.
