Bush's First Step by Sean Kay
Bush's First Step on a Long Road to Baghdad
By Sean Kay (Sept. 19, 2002)
(Originally published in the Akron Beacon Journal.)
In last week's address to the United Nations, President Bush made an important tactical shift in America's campaign to remove Saddam Hussein as the leader of Iraq.
A month ago, presidential advisers argued it was pointless to work with the United Nations and unnecessary for Congress to authorize war. On both accounts, Bush has shown a willingness to reject a rush toward unilateral war.
Bush appropriately placed Iraq and the question of weapons of mass destruction within the United Nations. One of the strongest arguments for forcing the Iraq issue onto the international agenda is that Saddam has made a mockery of the United Nations. Iraq is in serious breach of ceasefire agreements -- codified in U.N. Security Council resolutions -- that ended the Persian Gulf War.
The United Nations now will consider resolutions compelling Saddam to readmit weapons inspectors or face severe consequences. Obtaining Security Council authorization of military force if inspectors are turned away will not be easy. A fundamental disconnect remains between the international community, whose priority is the insertion of weapons inspectors, and the Bush administration's priotity: regime change. Bush's focus removes Saddam's incentive to cooperate with the United Nations -- thus, the path to war continues.
Should war come, however, it will be after America has deeply engaged the international community. The president's maneuver toward the United Nations makes it easier for key allies in the Middle East and elsewhere to support, and possibly even contribute to, an American invasion of Iraq. By setting aside the rush to war of administration ideologues, Bush has made any eventual campaign in Iraq slightly less risky.
This political trend can help countries that engage diplomatically with Iraq to convince Saddam he must choose -- allow in completely unfettered weapons inspectors or lose power. Indeed, this benefit may already have produced some dividend with Iraq's statement that it intends to allow weapons inspectors to return.
Alternatively, this trend also might lead those around Saddam to take matters into their own hands. However, with the success of these outcomes not assured, the United States may find itself at war. Before that happens, Bush still has serious questions to answer.
He needs to explain to Congress and the American public exactly how he will ensure that war on Iraq will not distract from the global campaign against terrorism. Operational logistics may require that America's intelligence assets and analysis, special operations forces and budget priorities be devoted to an Iraqi campaign and away from the far-from-complete engagement in Afghanistan. This question seems especially important given press accounts of the CIA finding no Iraq link to al-Qaeda.
The Bush administration must demonstrate that it is prepared to manage any unintended consequences of a campaign in Iraq. Worst-case scenarios include an exchange between Israel and Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, and possible collapse of friendly American governments in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan due to popular unrest. Pakistan is especially crucial because, unlike Iraq, Pakistan has nuclear weapons as well as al-Qaeda members regrouping within its territory.
If the justification for war is Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction, then Bush must go public with whatever information is available to illustrate the urgency of the threat. American soldiers, whose lives will be risked, must know with confidence that they are fighting for a specific and urgent reason, and not a hypothetical assumption. Moreover, it would be reckless to engage in a war without first having a concept of who will govern Iraq next.
Finally, Iraq's effort to acquire nuclear weapons is a serious international concern. But it is also a symptom of an even more dangerous problem -- the vast presence of nuclear materials, components and scientific expertise in the former Soviet Union. A small fraction of the cost of an invasion and occupation of Iraq -- estimated to run as high as $200 billion -- could be spent to bolster existing programs that secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and to develop new radiation detection devices for America's border crossings.
President Bush has taken an important first step moving toward the United Nations to build international support for America's Iraq policy. In the end, an attack on Iraq might be necessary. However, Congress should not give Bush a blank check until it receives a thorough accounting of the many unanswered questions about a war in Iraq.