NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
August 28, 2002
Who said attack?
It's all done with mirrors signalling at many levels and to those beginning to wonder if the United States were really contemplating war with Iraq on Monday its vice president Dick Cheney shone the light thusly into their eyes: "I am familiar with the arguments against taking action in the case of Saddam Hussein. ... If we did wait ... many of those who now argue that we should act only if he gets a nuclear weapon would then turn around and say that 'We cannot because he has a nuclear weapon'. ... Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. ... Our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. ... Today in Afghanistan the world has seen that America acts not to conquer but to liberate. ... Our goal would be an Iraq that has territorial integrity a government that is democratic and pluralistic a nation where the human rights of every ethnic and religious group are recognized and protected." Each of these could be seen as a signal light in the eyes of a faction abroad a faction of domestic public opinion or even a faction within the administration itself. Mr. Cheney was speaking in Nashville Tennessee to the Veterans of Foreign Wars: "The entire nation joins you in honouring the memories of your friends and all who have died for our freedom." That was the final signal. It came on top of the chat Condoleezza Rice gave listeners to the BBC and to the speech that the Republican House majority whip Tom DeLay gave to constituents in Houston. Ms Rice is President George W. Bush's right hand on security issues; Rep. DeLay and he are joined politically at the hip. In this latter case an extra roll of percussion and a bit of jazz swing: for a moment after Rep. DeLay kindly offered to place a War Resolution on the floor of the House of Representatives Mr. Bush's aides were heard wondering aloud if such a resolution were really necessary. (It is in the opinion of Rep. Henry Hyde most formidable of judicious advisers: not one of those things that the Constitution specifies but one which the constitutional leader is unlikely to overlook.) I expect further drumbeating in the lead up to the anniversary of 9/11 setting the stage finally for the President himself. Same signals higher intensity. Does this mean the U.S. is about to go without a superficial provocation into Iraq? I don't think so. For one thing U.S. special forces are already there under the "no-fly zones" and rambling beyond them. But for another I do not think the President would begin open war on Baghdad without first getting Congressional approval not only for constitutional reasons but because of the political importance of making the Democrats declare their position. And in Europe it would make a great deal of sense for the Bush administration to wait until the German general election is over. Chancellor Schroeder having made a hash of his first term in office and trailing badly in the polls has turned to anti-American demagoguery in a last-ditch attempt to preserve his Social Democratic government in power. His comparatively pro-American rival the Christian Union leader Edmund Stoiber seems still to be coasting home (the vote will be Sept. 22). As the U.S. will be heavily dependent once war begins on its NATO bases and transshipment facilities in Germany it would much prefer to wait for this dust to settle. The U.S. and European media focus almost exclusively on the domestic consequences of rhetoric from the Bush administration. They tend to leave Iraq itself quietly out of the picture concentrating on some "great debate" within the West within America within the Republican Party or the Bush administration itself on whether to go to war. But there really hasn't been much of a debate outside their own pages. To read the papers from either side of the Atlantic you would think the purpose of Mr. Cheney's speech and the others was to draw "a line in the sand" -- not against Saddam Hussein but against Brent Scowcroft and other "doves" who are presumed to be flying between the "hawk" and his mouse. To state it thus is to show what is wrong with this view: it will not be Gen. Scowcroft standing in the road to Baghdad. But these are very sophisticated analysts and the fact they are always wrong should not deter us from recognizing their role in shaping public and diplomatic opinion. The light is instead being shone into the eyes chiefly of the dictator of Iraq. (Do you think the Bush administration was unaware that he'd be watching?) He is being told unambiguously that sooner or later the Americans will arrive; and probably sooner. All parties to the dispute within the region -- in Cairo Riyadh the Gulf States and elsewhere -- are being similarly advised that there is no debate. They are being told to get ready (and who knows what besides by the President entertaining Saudi visitors at his ranch in Crawford Texas yesterday). This is brinkmanship of a very high order -- over the heads of the media. And here is the $64 million question they have not thought to ask: What does Mr. Bush expect Saddam to do? I can't answer that without knowing everything Mr. Bush knows or seeing inside Saddam. I can speculate however and do so in the belief that Mr. Bush has already deployed scattered over as many regional bases as were available a very potent force sufficient to make fairly short work of the unspeakable Saddamite regime. (And he has done this without publicity and not because he wanted to keep it out of the Western media but because he had to minimize the political pressure on each of his several regional hosts.) My speculation is that Mr. Bush would prefer that Saddam strike first; that the pain of gaining a formal consensus to invade "out of the blue" could be forgone by this method. (Shades if you will of Lincoln's reinforcement leading to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter.) More broadly: a Saddam who even thinks of striking first will be compelled to expose hidden military assets which he will then quickly lose. Whereas a Saddam who won't strike first who instead opts "wisely" to burrow deeper or dig more holes and put his faith in European and Arab diplomacy can then be advanced upon by increments until he is down to his last hole. David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top