[PEN-L:29582] Re: Rumours of war on Iraq

[Michael Pollak <mpollak@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Bush I sloshed about looking for a justification [e.g., Baker, It's
> about oil] and none took hold until he warned that Saddam had nukes
> ready to fly.

No, that was the excuse.  The strategic justification for Gulf War I was
to destroy Saddam's army, which was too big for our liking, because it was
now in the hands of an expansionist power that would only get stronger
with succeeding victories.  And it was accomplished.  The failure was in
what came after.  We were hoist by our own demonization.  Calling someone
Hitler makes it easy to rally support, but it's a temptation
realpoliticians should resist because it makes it politically impossible
to make deals afterwards. And strategically, the US was fine with Saddam
so long as he stayed put.  That's why Bush I backed him through the whole
Iraq/Iran war.  Iraq and Iran contained each other.  Without him, we were
forced to contain them both.  This was strategically boneheaded.  It has
cost us in strategic influence in the region with no offsetting gain and
no end in sight.  It was based on a faith in regime change through
sanctions that would be laughable if it wasn't a crime against humanity.

> Rob need not worry about the attack hurting Bush in 2004.  There are
> plenty of dogs to wag.

There is a good case to be made that war is not a sure vote winner.
Below is an article that makes several good points.  But the argument can
be summed up in a couple of sentences.  In the best case scenario from the
Administration's point of view -- Iraq's army collapses immediately,
Saddam dies, and (somewhat improbably) we succeed in finding and
installing our impossible dream of a strong leader who licks our boots
(which are hard to find for some reason) -- the first thing we will have
to do is suppress the Kurds and Shias.

In other words, it would be an exact repetition of Gulf War I, except that
instead of leaving Saddam in place we'd be swapping him for a new one.
This was not a vote winner the first time around, and it will be even less
so the second.

And this is the best case scenario, the chances of which are less than
50-50.  All other, worse case scenarios (up through and including
apocalypse) would have a worse effect on Bush's (and Republican in
general) re-elecation chances.

This is why most of the opposition (such as it is) is coming from
Republicans rather than Democrats.

Michael

Financial Times; Aug 15, 2002

War on Iraq is not inevitable

By Philip Stephens

Donald Rumsfeld has chewed up what was left of his leash. Dick Cheney's
growls grow ever louder. Word has it that Paul Wolfowitz has already been
measured up for desert fatigues. Versions of the Pentagon's military plans
appear daily on the front page of the New York Times. A US invasion of
Iraq is a foregone conclusion. The only question is when. That's what
everyone says. I am not convinced.

Most Americans think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein is the right thing
to do. More than that, it would allow George W. Bush to settle an old
family score. George senior really should have marched on Baghdad when he
had the chance back in 1991. George W can put that right. Neat. Too neat.
Something's missing. It's the politics, stupid. Does George W really want
to bet the White House on beating Saddam Hussein?

All first-term presidents share one ambition: to stay on for another four
years. There is nothing ignoble about that. If a president is really going
to change things, he needs eight years in the Oval Office. For George W,
though, the precedents are particularly acute.

Sure, avenging the humiliation of his father implicit in Mr Hussein's hold
on power more than a decade after the Gulf war would be nice. But far more
important for the family's self-esteem is that George W wins in November
2004. As George senior has discovered, one-term presidencies are history's
footnotes, interesting mostly for what might have been. We must assume his
son does not want to be remembered as the Bush family's second
presidential interlude.

So will putting GIs in Baghdad help George W keep hold of the White House?
It is hard to say with any confidence that it will. Much easier to see how
a war that went wrong, or even one that went right, could hand back the
presidency to the Democrats.

The angriest warriors in Washington have one thing in common. They are
yesterday's politicians. The 70-year-old Donald Rumsfeld first served in
his present role at the Pentagon more than 25 years ago under President
Gerald Ford. The 61-year-old Mr Cheney, whose patched-up heart makes him a
one-term vice-president, was defence secretary under George Bush senior.
Mr Wolfowitz is another of these veterans of previous Republican
administrations whose main aim in life seems to be to put right the wrongs
of the past.

For the president, though, history carries different lessons. His father
won the war and lost the presidency. His defeat had nothing to do with the
fact that Mr Hussein was still in power. Desert Storm was a great success.
But the voters decided that George senior should have paid more attention
to the economy. So they backed Bill Clinton.

George W. has other reasons to know that victory on the battlefield does
not necessarily secure the affection of the people. One of his political
heroes is Winston Churchill. A bronze bust of the great British prime
minister sits below one of the president's prized West Texas paintings in
the Oval Office. We all know what happened to Churchill even as he basked
in the glory of Britain's finest hour. An ungrateful electorate turned him
out of office.

The strategy of the Washington hawks, of course, has been to close down
the president's options: to create a climate in which Mr Bush has no
option but to invade Iraq. They are nearly, but not quite, there. Only the
other day the president sought to calm some of the frenzy. War wasn't
imminent, he said, and he intended to be "patient and deliberate" before
proceeding against Iraq. That meant he would consult closely with
America's allies - and no doubt wi th Karl Rove, the White House political
strategist charged with securing his re-election. Mr Bush also sought to
protect his domestic flank by summoning friendly business folk to Texas to
talk up prospects for the American economy.

Mr Rumsfeld's response has been to ratchet up the let's-go-to-war
rhetoric. Mr Cheney, meanwhile, has promised the motley band of Iraqi
exiles which pretends to be a government-in-exile that the US is indeed
set on getting rid of Mr Hussein. You can almost hear the defence
secretary and vice-president whispering in George W's ear. "You can't back
down now, Mr President. Too much has been said - not least by us. The
American people would say you had gone soft on terrorism."

The opinion polls, though, tell a different story. Americans (and
Europeans could not disagree) are certain that Mr Hussein is a bad guy.
They are in favour of military action to remove him. But behind that
headline judgment there is a great deal of uncertainty. Support for war
falls sharply once the prospect of heavy casualties is raised. The same
happens when it is suggested that America might have to fight alone.  And
if most Americans see Mr Hussein as a threat, they are far from sure that
he represents a clear and present danger. Mr Bush, every one of the polls
suggests, has yet to make the case for risking thousands of American lives
on the road to Baghdad.

The risks are real, pointed up in the recent hearings in Congress. No one
knows what sort of fight the Iraqis would put up to defend the present
regime. But if he has weapons of mass destruction, Mr Hussein would never
have a better reason for using them.  The prospect of house-to-house
fighting in Baghdad appals military strategists. So too does the risk of
an Iraqi missile attack on Israel.

War against Iraq might well be seen by voters as a distraction from the
task of defeating the al-Qaeda terrorist network. We still do not know the
whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Western intelligence services believe the
threat of another terrorist outrage is high. Iraq is a danger but a more
distant one. How would the president look if al-Qaeda attacked again as he
waged war against Mr Hussein?

Then, of course, there are the economic risks. Even if the Middle East
stayed relatively calm and the war went smoothly, the oil price could
double and send middle America back into recession. George W won't have
forgotten Mr Clinton's presidency-winning slogan.  It's the economy,
stupid.

The politics of war are almost always asymmetric. Victory brings uncertain
gains, defeat more predictable retribution. At some stage the US - and its
allies - will certainly have to confront Mr Hussein. But as yet there has
been nothing to show that the threat is immediate enough to demand his
instant removal. Until that changes, war is not inevitable. Unless, of
course, Mr Bush is happy to follow in his father's footsteps.