U.S. Isolated from Allies in Plans to Attack Iraq: NY Times
 |
|
In his rush to drive Hussein from power, Bush ignores all necessary steps |
WASHINGTON, Aug 11, (IslamOnline &
News Agencies) – While the chairman of the Democratic National
Committee issued a broad assault on the leadership of U.S. President
George W. Bush, a big U.S. newspaper warned Sunday, August 11, 2002,
that Bush’s plans against Iraq could be “a terrible mistake that
could cripple a military campaign before the first shot was fired and
undermine American interests abroad”.
When
it comes to fighting foreign wars, American presidents have been most
successful when they adhered to a set of democratic principles, act
with the consent of Congress, fight in alliance with other nations and
exhaust diplomatic measures before going to war. As Bush edges closer
to a decision on whether to take up arms against Saddam Hussein, he
sometimes acts as though these are trivial concerns, The New York
Times’ editorial said.
The
Constitution gives Congress alone the power to declare war. In modern
times, Presidents used their own constitutional authority as
commanders in chief to conduct undeclared wars, most notably in
Vietnam. In the case of Iraq, the White House is weighing the use of
military force to try to eliminate future dangers, rather than to
respond to present aggression. That affords ample time for
Congressional action, the paper added.
Bypassing
Congress would also be politically irresponsible. Wars rarely proceed
according to plan. Battlefield setbacks can swiftly erode public
support. If that happened, Congressional involvement could temper the
kind of divisions America experienced over Vietnam. At this point,
administration officials, who met this weekend with representatives of
Iraq's fragmented opposition, seem more interested in listening to the
wishful talk of Iraqi dissidents than consulting with Congress, the
paper charged.
Rarely
in preparing for war has America seemed so isolated from potential
military partners and allies as it does today in approaching Iraq.
European and Arab leaders have expressed strong misgivings about the
administration's war talk. Even Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain,
Washington's firmest European supporter, faces serious opposition at
home on this issue, The New York Times warned.
If
America went to war, allied support would help dissipate the
impression abroad that the conflict was simply a grudge match between
the Bush and Hussein clans. Without the help of allies, securing a
durable peace in Iraq would be especially difficult.
Drawing
Bush’s attention to the requirements of his desired adventure in
Iraq, the paper went on to say that one of the biggest challenges
following a war would be establishing a new Iraqi government that
could attract popular support, live in peace with its neighbors and
not require the long-term presence of American forces. Allies,
especially Arab allies, would be indispensable to achieving this. The
postwar period might also require the stationing of international
peacekeepers and the provision of substantial reconstruction aid.
The
administration would also have to demonstrate that it had fully
exhausted all diplomatic alternatives to war. For more than a decade,
Iraq tried to evade the disarmament provisions it agreed to at the end
of the second Gulf war. Circumstances seem favorable to a new American
drive to unite the United Nations Security Council behind a demand
that Iraq either accept full inspections or face possible military
consequences. That would parallel the successful strategy Bush's
father followed in winning Security Council authorization for the 1991
Gulf war.
Whether
or not diplomacy ultimately provides a solution, it is worth trying.
Iraq already possesses biological and chemical weapons, and Hussein
would probably not hesitate to use them in a desperate effort to
prevent the dissolution of his regime. Potential targets could include
American troops in the field, Israeli cities and Saudi and Kuwaiti oil
export sites, according to the paper.
If
there are reliable ways of keeping Iraq contained until it can be
fully disarmed, they must be explored. Bush will do America no favor
if he races headlong into war.
However,
it is worth mentioning here that Scott Ritter, former head of the UN
missions in Iraq (responsible for monitoring and evaluating Iraq’s
biological and chemical weapons’ program), has, in several
occasions, asserted that Iraq no more possesses such weapons.
Meanwhile,
Bush came under fire Saturday, August 10, from the
chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who issued a broad
assault on the leadership of Bush, declaring that the President
squandered "an extraordinary opportunity" to take the nation
through difficult times, according to New York Times.
The
chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said that Bush mismanaged the economy,
tilted the White House to help corporate interests and "cynically
made 9/11 the cornerstone of the Republican 2002 election
strategy."
"All
this trust, all this support - what an opportunity to lead,"
McAuliffe said. "But in the end, to what end?
"A
White House that even Republicans call the most political ever,"
McAuliffe continued. "An administration adrift, with polling
numbers as their only compass and high approval ratings as their only
destination. George Bush squandered our trust, he ignored the mandate
and he wasted the opportunity."
McAuliffe's
speech was among the toughest any Democrat - including possible
presidential contenders - made about Bush since last September.
In
his speech, McAuliffe argued that Bush was not in a position to crack
down on questionable corporate practices because of his own business
background. He again raised questions about financial dealings at the
Harken Energy Corporation when Bush was on its board.
"President
Bush was unwilling to spend political capital to make the necessary
corporate reforms," McAuliffe said. "But even worse, his own
past leaves him unable to lead on this issue. How can he restore
confidence to Wall Street when he has engaged in the same practices he
condemns today?"
McAuliffe
even invoked the name of one of the players in the corporate scandals
as he criticized Bush's handling of the economy.
"Americans
trusted that George Bush would be straight with us about the state of
the federal budget, but he used the same accounting gimmicks that
destroyed Enron to hide his descent into deficit spending,"
McAuliffe said to whistles and boos from a partisan crowd gathered in
a ballroom just a hallway away from the slot machines and rows of
gambling tables at the Las Vegas Hilton.
McAuliffe
spoke at the closing session of the Democrats' summer meeting. His
remarks were (possibly) made with an eye to helping Democratic
candidates in the Congressional elections this fall. However, they
also were an aggressive effort to lay out a potential plan of attack
for the Democratic Presidential candidates who are already preparing
for 2004.
However,
McAuliffe was promptly attacked by his counterpart at the Republican
National Committee, Marc Racicot, who described the speech as
"reckless political rhetoric."
"Such
attacks, as those made today in Las Vegas, are a disservice to our
political system and our president's efforts to bring all Americans
together to deal with our nation's most serious issues," Racicot
said. "Americans deserve a more thoughtful and sincere debate
between the parties."
|
