Bush needs to explain threat or stop war talk

As American troops leave for "training practices" on Middle Eastern bases, and more missile batteries are installed in Kuwait, the countdown clock for war with Iraq seems to be reaching the final hour.

But should President Bush pull the plug on the impending war or start gassing up his tanks?

Weighing the pros and cons for typical Americans outside the Pentagon's Inner Information Circle seems to be a little hazy. We have only limited information on why we should attack, and piles of unanswered questions on why we should not.

President Bush and his Cabinet are pleading with the American people to accept that Saddam Hussein poses a real threat and is a "menace" to the entire world, a claim that has drawn skepticism from both the international community and the average Joe. The threat Saddam poses, according to the Bush administration, is the production of weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the harboring of terrorists - a claim that the United States also has against North Korea and Iran. Why don't we attack them, too? The reasons for attacking Iraq specifically are not clear, nor is the evidence presented thus far conclusive.

Former U.N. weapons inspectors such as Hans Blix say there is no evidence of Iraq having any such capabilities.

They claim that Saddam's weapons programs are dead and that he poses no major threat to the region, to the United States or to the world.

That view seems to make more sense right now than the sketchy information the Bush Cabinet is releasing, and it is costing the administration support.

Bush will need the international heavyweights to back him up if he decides to attack Iraq.

The United Nations' role in the Iraq equation cannot be underestimated.

Britain, a strong ally in the anti-Saddam campaign, France, Germany and Russia are all insisting that the United Nations be involved with any decision against Iraq.

Although 90 percent of European nations oppose a unilateral U.S. offensive, more than 60 percent would support the attack, if the United Nations passed new resolutions.

Bush, realizing that the United Nations' support would give a strategic advantage to his plan, gave a speech last month to the general assembly, begging for action. He was denied.

The only response seemed to be one from Iraq, who continued to claim that it has no weapons of mass destruction and that weapons inspections could resume.

The Bush administration simply saw this assertion as one more round in the "cat and mouse game" that it says it has been playing too long.

And even if the United States is successful in a war with Iraq, what will happen next?

Will the United States simply leave Iraq to chaos and anarchy as groups fight for control of the lands, and as another ruthless dictator takes over?

Before we plan for success, Bush needs to figure out exactly what the roles of other nations and the United States will be in a post- Saddam Iraq.

More important than an "end-game" in Iraq is the precedence in international relations this will create.

If a country, such as India, deems its enemy - in this case Pakistan - to be a serious threat to national interests, does a country have a right to topple a regime? Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder vehemently says no.

If Bush, after meeting with harsh resistance in the Security Council, goes ahead and fights Iraq, does it devalue the United Nations' relevance in international mitigation?

And finally, will this attack dawn the age of a new America, where the mightiest nation in the world topples anyone who "poses a threat" without releasing substantiating evidence?

"It doesn't seem prudent" as Dana Carvey's President Bush the elder character always said on "Saturday Night Live."

A solution to this tangle of policy and precedence that the United States is setting seems to be obvious enough, however: Enforce the unrestricted U.N. weapons inspections that Iraq has promised, to appease our allies and the public, appeal to the United Nations to pass a new Security Council resolution on Iraq, and release the evidence of Iraq's terrible weapons, if you have any. If unrestricted weapons inspections are refused, make the case to our allies and they will support the war.

With the international support, we will win and the new war against Iraq will have a much more successful conclusion.

If we don't win support, we don't release evidence, and we don't have an end game, why do we need war?

Copyright 2002 Cowles Publishing Company
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.