A rchive Date
[ 07-02-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[Here's one mind changed by Powell
By MARIANNE MEANS
Feb. 6, 2003, 7:34PM
UNLESS Saddam Hussein suddenly caves in, it's all over.
The public debate about what to do about him is winding down. Diplomacy has lost out. We are going to war with or without the United Nations. We have no other choice.
Until Secretary of State Colin Powell's convincing exposure of Iraq's sneaky efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction, I was opposed to the administration's sword-rattling. It seemed to me reckless warmongering for domestic politics.
But now that I know the frightening details of Iraq's dangerous stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons, I have reluctantly become convinced we should move aggressively to stop it. I believe Powell, whose damning scenario was based on satellite photos, intelligence reports, phone intercepts and declassified interviews. Solid stuff.
It turns out the administration had good reason to be worried about Saddam Hussein. The wonder is officials didn't explain it to us earlier. War is such a momentous event, and it was arrogant of President Bush and his team to assume we would simply take their word for its necessity.
Although public sentiment in parts of Europe is still heavily against a war, Powell put to rest the doubts of many Americans.
After his U.N. speech, Powell went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to call again for quick military action, promising that "the end game" will be within weeks, not months. The administration is playing along a bit with demands for continued inspections, but the U.N. inspectors' next report Feb. 14 is likely to be the cutoff point.
Even wary Democrats have seen enough. The leading Democratic presidential candidates - Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards and Rep. Richard Gephardt - said they found Powell's evidence compelling. They also said they would support military action even if the United Nations does not pass a second resolution authorizing the move.
Inevitably, disturbing questions remain. Would a pre-emptive U.S. strike set an international precedent that could encourage other countries to mount military attacks of their own on their neighbors without provocation? It's a distinct possibility.
Would war lead to new retaliatory terrorist attacks on us and others? That's a good possibility too.
Once we invaded Iraq, what would we do with it? It's a nation of more than 23 million people, many of whom do not get along with one another. If the country were to break up, the resulting chaos could threaten the stability of the entire region, including allies such as Saudi Arabia. Or a religious fanatic even more dangerous than Saddam could seize power. We would be forced to stick around and supervise the formation of a new Iraqi government. But for how long?
Bush used to scoff at Bill Clinton's concept of nation-building, warning that such activities abroad spread U.S. military resources too thinly. Now he's likely to be stuck with doing it anyway.
Will those nations that currently oppose using force rally behind us when the fighting begins? France and Germany are petulantly dragging their feet but may not want to go down in history on the wrong side of a war with Iraq.
Will Iraq turn some of its horrible weapons against U.S. troops if it fears imminent defeat? How can we defend ourselves at home against poison gas or germ warfare if Iraq gives terrorists those weapons to sneak into the United States? Can we destroy Saddam's regime without bloody house-to-house fighting in Baghdad?
Just how involved is Iraq with al-Qaida? Powell declared that "extremists" associated with the terrorist group have set up a base of operations in Baghdad. But this was the weakest part of his case, and State Department officials said they did not think Saddam was "exercising operational control" over the network.
The administration is well aware of these questions. And naturally officials are not going to tip off Saddam in advance by publicly discussing whatever answers they have. Already they have prepared for war so publicly that they have done everything but dial his telephone number and ask which date would be convenient for our bombers and troops to visit him.
We are forced to trust that our leaders will be cautious, careful and lucky when the time comes. Such blind confidence in the White House and the Pentagon does not come easy for a confirmed skeptic like me.
But, heck, I'm scared. That madman must be stopped, and we're the only ones with the muscle to do it.
Means is a Washington, D.C.-based columnist for the Hearst Newspapers. (means@hearstdc.com)
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|