A rchive Date
[ 09-03-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1809156
Great risks involved in going it alone in Iraq
By DAN RATHER
March 7, 2003, 2:08PM
No question about it, the capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a big, significant victory for the United States. It came at a key time for the Bush administration as it prepares to wage a war that some say is a distraction from the larger war on terrorism.
Still, the past week was not, on balance, a good one for the president's plan to disarm Iraq by force.
There was defeat in the Turkish parliament of a measure that would have allowed the United States to use bases in Turkey as a staging point for a northern invasion of Iraq. There was word that Iraq had begun to destroy some of its banned missiles and the subsequent comment by chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix that this represented "real disarmament."
Then there was a midweek announcement from France, Germany and Russia that they would "not allow" passage of a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. Left unsaid for the moment is whether permanent Security Council members Russia and France would use their veto power to this end.
Both the vote in Turkey and the upcoming U.N. vote have symbolic importance; they are barometers of the degree to which the United States has succeeded or failed to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world.
But each also has a very large practical dimension. The decision in Turkey, even if later reversed, means delays that might ultimately make for a longer and bloodier war. The vote in the United Nations, meantime, could play a large role in determining the extent of American public support for war. A recent CBS News poll indicated that while 66 percent of the American public supports military action against Iraq, only 31 percent favors going to war without U.N. backing.
President Bush has stated from the outset that he is willing to go it alone in Iraq if necessary. By this time next week, that prospect might be a good deal closer to becoming reality.
What would going it alone mean? For Bush, it would mean that the Iraqi gamble would become all his. For the United States, it means that the task of postwar nation-building in Iraq will likely be a lonely one, in terms of manpower and of footing a bill that figures to be huge. It could also spell complications for U.S. efforts to deal with the burgeoning nuclear crisis in North Korea.
Bush is aware of all this, but he has given every indication that he believes a war without the United Nations, if it comes to that, is worth the risks.
Which brings us to what some historically minded people are saying: For posterity and precedent, Bush might do well to sharpen, hone and choose among the several reasons - disarming a rogue state, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, liberating an oppressed people, sowing the seeds of democracy - he has given for why a pre-emptive war is necessary, just and important at this time.
Rather is anchor of CBS Evening Newand a native Texan
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|