Bush Has Not Made the Case

Bush Has Not Made the Case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13479-2003Feb2.html

 By Bill Bradley The State of the Union address was President Bush's
opportunity to make the case for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. He failed to
do so in a convincing manner. How we get rid of Saddam Hussein is as
important in the long run as just getting rid of him. If we do it the wrong
way, our action could seriously damage larger national interests.

 Among the speech's failings:

 1. The president did not demonstrate that a unilateral U.S. invasion of
Iraq will help in the fight against the ongoing, more serious, distributed
threat of worldwide terrorism. To the contrary, it could well become a giant
recruiting vehicle for al Qaeda and its imitators. Young Muslims around the
world will see U.S. action without U.N. approval as neocolonialist,
motivated more by a desire for Iraqi oil than Iraqi freedom. Many could
become terrorists, striking at Americans anywhere in the world. If Americans
are safe abroad only when they're accompanied by bodyguards, it will be
difficult, among other things, for the United States to succeed in the world
economy.

 2. Bush did not acknowledge that a unilateral invasion risks destabilizing
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Egypt -- any one of which would be a major
strategic loss for the United States. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the most
benign potential change involves the overthrow of the current royal
leadership by family factions that are much less pro-American. More serious
would be a military coup led by an officer corps whose growing membership
since 1991 has reflected the Muslim street more than the royal house. The
worst scenario would be a radical Islamic revolt that could gain momentum
from unanticipated developments in a U.S. conflict with Iraq. Likewise, any
radical change in Pakistan could turn over nuclear weapons to Islamic
terrorists -- the very thing the administration says it's trying to prevent
by invading Iraq. Finally, any radical change in Egypt, however unlikely,
could pose a mortal threat to Israel.

 3. The president minimized the importance of allies in a war against Iraq,
as he has in many other areas. The major foreign policy job of the American
president is to maintain healthy relations with the great powers -- Europe,
Russia, China and Japan. If the United States conveys a vision in which each
power can find the realization of its own interests, that job is easier. At
the moment, China, Russia and the core states of Europe (Germany and France)
oppose a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq, and, given U.S. positions on the
Kyoto protocol, arms control treaties and the world court, they increasingly
see America's world vision as diverging from their own. The administration
ignores this opposition at America's peril. Those who preach American
hegemony might well be trapped in the swamp of American hubris.

 4. Bush's strong remarks ignored the fact that military actions often have
unpredictable consequences. For example, the 1991 Persian Gulf War led to a
continuing U.S. presence in the Islamic holy land -- something the British
and French always avoided -- and radicalized a generation of Muslims,
helping to create the atmosphere for the emergence of Osama bin Laden. This
time, what will happen when the shooting stops is far from clear. If we are
to be seen as more than transparent hypocrites, we will have to not only win
a war and maintain a military presence in Iraq, but also to preside over the
development of democracy in a country that makes the former Yugoslavia seem
homogeneous. This is a multi-year commitment that could take thousands of
U.S. lives and billions of dollars, yet there appears to be no plan for
carrying it out. The president has not leveled with the American people
about the cost of democratization, nor has he built popular support for
occupation. By telling the American public only half the story now, he risks
great national division later.

 5. The president did not point out that the prospect of unilateral U.S.
invasion has caused Iraq's neighbors to put away traditional animosities and
begin to consult on what it could mean for them. When Shia Iran, Sunni Saudi
Arabia, secular and authoritarian Syria, and secular and democratic Turkey
all get together, we should pay attention. None of them has any love for
Hussein, and they would welcome his demise, but at a minimum each could be
overwhelmed by refugees in the event of war. They also have a common concern
about a long, dominant U.S. presence in Iraq. To act without specific
consultation with them on the structure of postwar Iraq invites their
alienation and their adventurism among Iraq's ethnic groups, making it that
much more difficult to establish a multiethnic, democratic Iraq.

 No one should underestimate the power of the U.S. military. We have highly
trained and patriotic soldiers and the very latest technology. Secretaries
Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell are enormously talented leaders. There is
no doubt the United States can win a war with Iraq. Hussein can be made to
pay in overthrow, exile or defeat for what appears now to be his flagrant
noncompliance with U.N. Resolution 1441. Still, the timing of military
action and the international consensus supporting it are critical.
Throughout the Cold War, we spent billions of dollars to contain the Soviet
Union. Presidents rallied international support, bolstered our defenses and
built consensus, but they never committed forces to a European war.
Containment worked. For most of the 1990s, we contained Hussein. The
unwillingness of the Clinton administration to do anything decisive when
Hussein ejected U.N. inspectors was a serious error that Bush, with a more
robust approach, has now corrected.

  The president should recognize what he has already accomplished and keep
the pressure on Hussein until he disarms or we achieve international
consensus (as I believe we can) for military action. Consensus sometimes
takes longer. It often doesn't fit a political calendar, but it is far
preferable to unilateral action that jeopardizes our long-term leadership
abroad and our unity at home.

-----------

 The writer, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey, is a managing
director of Allen & Co. LLC.