Fred Barnes, executive editor
|
|
PRESIDENT BUSH has a lot to lose in dealing with Saddam Hussein. But the problem isn't what you think. Bush is likely to come out a winner if he sticks with his promise to bring about regime change in Iraq by deposing Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator is more unpopular at home and far weaker militarily than he was in the Gulf War in 1991--thus easier to defeat. With Saddam gone, the world would breathe a sigh of relief. But should the president change his mind and decide against a military campaign to take out Saddam, he risks winding up a loser, a leader who encountered a tough enemy and temporized. Backing down, Bush--and America, for that matter--will suffer politically, economically, and diplomatically.
Until the past week or two, there wasn't any question of Bush's reneging on his vow to press ahead with the war on terrorism. Bush was firmly committed to pursuing the war all the way to Baghdad and beyond. But now there are credible reports the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon are wary of attacking Iraq anytime soon, if ever. And Bush, in the days before and during his trip to Europe that ended yesterday, has suddenly become coy on the subject, saying no military plans for an Iraq campaign are on his desk. While in Europe, he said he would consult with allies later, once he makes a decision. But wasn't that part of the purpose of the trip in the first place?
In judging the
potential impact of a flip-flop on Iraq, the first step is to recall Bush's own words. Nine days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the president identified the enemy as "a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them." Iraq is obviously one of those governments. Bush also said the war on terrorism wouldn't end until all terrorists have been "found, stopped and defeated."
In his State of the Union address on January 29, the president was more specific, mentioning Iraq by name as part of the "axis of evil." With the Taliban defeated, he said "our war on terror is only beginning . . . we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world." Again, he cited Iraq.
Those bold and unequivocal statements will make it difficult for Bush to explain a retreat on Iraq. Saddam is allowing inspectors to return? Nobody would believe inspectors would be allowed to check out every suspected Iraqi installation. Saddam is a changed man? That's a laugh. The United States was just flat wrong in thinking Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction? Again, a non-starter.
The fact is Bush wouldn't be able to come up with a believable explanation for backing off. The result: His credibility would be shattered. Everything he says about terrorism or threats to America would be suspect. One of his strengths is his insistence on speaking with moral clarity. That strength would be gone, too. Going soft on Iraq, on top of reaching easy compromises with liberal Democrats in Congress, would turn Bush's own base among conservatives against him.
|
