The president’s news conference Thursday was the most statesmanlike presentation he made so far on war with Iraq.
It was in the nature of a closing argument in a complex case. His thoughtful remarks revealed his human and religious side, but his arguments, in part convincing, were mostly overreaching, superficial and insufficient.
On the whole, President Bush bolstered the conviction of those who see war with Iraq as inevitable and in the best interests of the U.S., but he failed to allay the concerns of those who oppose it.
The president had two objectives: to address the negative impressions his administration created and to buy time for U.S. diplomacy to produce a fig leaf Security Council resolution for the use of force.
However, opposition throughout the world is high. Pope John Paul II is joining, as have other religious leaders, as the archbishop of Canterbury tips the moral scale against the U.S. Opponents of the war at home were branded unpatriotic, and those abroad were demeaned.
Suffice it to recall the unfair characterizations of France’s position and the descriptions of the French people. Last week, when Cardinal Pio Laghi brought the president a personal message from the pope, Bush could neither ignore it nor discredit it.
The president needed to address concerns at home and abroad, but in so doing, he persisted in overstating the connection between 9/11 and the Iraqi regime.
That connection does not exist.
To emphasize it discredits the valid arguments of the administration concerning Iraq’s believed concealment of chemical and biological agents that could be used as weapons in war or potentially by terrorists to whom they may be given.
Secretary of State Colin Powell made the same arguments before the United Nations and got caught in a few exaggerations that detracted from other credible arguments. The truth is pretty bad without trying to make it worse, but the administration’s zeal to arouse passions against Saddam Hussein causes it to overstate its case and misrepresent certain facts.
Hussein is terrible, but trying to make him look abominable only makes the terrible seem acceptable.
There is hardly any support for Hussein anywhere in the world, just as there is no support for international terrorism except among fringe extremists. The arrogant and “in your face” approach is hardly the way to make friends and influence people.
The bottom line is that Iraq has for 12 years thumbed its nose at Security Council resolutions by failing to comply with complete disclosure and elimination of its weapons of mass destruction programs.
It took the U.S. almost that long to put its foot down, and that in part raised questions that have not been well-answered. If Hussein could be contained for 12 years and cause no trouble, why is there an imminent threat?
The answer would have simply been that 9/11 brought about a realization that the U.S., and for that matter any other country, is vulnerable to terrorism. Weapons of mass destruction cause catastrophic results, and their threat cannot be underestimated.
Hussein’s unaccounted-for stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and his capacity to develop or maybe acquire nuclear weapons are enough of a clear danger in light of his history. He did, after all, invade Iran and Kuwait, using chemical weapons against Iran and against his people.
The administration could not ignore the distinct possibility that he might do it again against countries in the region or that he might give some of these chemical and biological agents to terrorist groups.
Resolution was reasonable
The president was correct in stating that his first obligation is to protect the U.S. and its people, and no one in his position should ignore these risks.
Given that the Iraqi regime has not satisfactorily accounted for a large quantity of estimated weaponized chemical and biological substances, as well as stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, it was eminently reasonable for the administration to have taken the action it did in securing Resolution 1441, which provided the final opportunity for inspection and accounting of these weapons and agents.
Considering the history of Hussein’s “hide and seek” games and his mastery at avoiding disarmament, it’s not surprising that he would have followed the same approach he used in the past few months. But having opted for an inspection regime, as opposed to an “accounting regime,” the administration allowed for him to appear cooperative and for others to argue that the process requires more time.
With each small gesture of cooperation, Hussein reinforced his position and was able to turn the tables against the U.S. In response, the administration became impatient, tough talking, even arrogant and, in so doing, alienated many governments, as well as world public opinion.
Worse, however, the administration revealed its disregard for international legitimacy in announcing its resort to force even without a specific Security Council authorization. This, more than anything else, unnecessarily damaged the world standing of the U.S.
In his news conference, Bush sought to change some of these perceptions and was in part successful.
But he failed to convincingly explain the administration’s plan in connection with a regime change, the administration of occupied Iraq, and post-conflict justice for the crimes committed by Hussein and those in his regime.
Unrealistic goal
The idea of the U.S. being able to shortly make of Iraq a model for regional democracy and this being a turning point for other Arab states is unrealistic.
The international community remains concerned about the dangers facing the Iraqi people, the destruction of that country’s infrastructure, the potential for a humanitarian disaster, and the lack of will and perseverance of the U.S. to help that country rebuild.
The administration never committed itself in a credible way to nation-building in Iraq. Because it failed to achieve it in Afghanistan, the U.S. faces doubt of the claims it has made in regard to Iraq. If the U.S. thinks that after military victory, it can militarily administer the country for a short time and then find a quick exit strategy, it is mistaken.
Turning that task over to the UN is a sure recipe for failure.
The administration policy remains afflicted by certain major failings.
Moral argument was strong
The first is giving up on the moral argument against Hussein’s regime for the crimes committed in wars against Iran and Kuwait and internally against his people, notably in connection with the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings that the U.S. called for.
Moreover, that brutal regime has caused an estimated 200,000 Iraqis to die and countless other Iraqis to be tortured, raped and arbitrarily imprisoned over prolonged periods.
For the president to refer to these large-scale and systematic violations of international humanitarian law and human-rights law with such occasional terms as murder and the deprivation of the right of dissent in Iraq was an unconscionable understatement.
The administration should have insisted during the past two years that the Security Council establish a commission to investigate these crimes as the council did with the former Yugoslavia. As the chairman of that commission, I can attest to the impact of its work on the change in world opinion toward the Milosevic regime.
That work resulted in the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which sits in The Hague and before which Slobodan Milosevic now stands trial.
Bush would have been in a much different position today if the world had been made privy to the crimes committed by Hussein’s regime. Bush’s depiction of Hussein would have been quite different if he had been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by a special UN-established tribunal.
`Crusade’ a mistake
Another monumental error has been to convey to the Muslim world that the U.S. is engaged in a “crusade”–a term laden with significance of religious war.
This is why the pope’s recent message to the world is so significant and why its positive impact on the Muslim world was immediately felt. In contrast, some U.S. evangelists of the Christian right carried out a vilification campaign against Islam that caused anger and indignation throughout the Muslim world and elsewhere. The president’s gestures of support for Muslim-Americans were symbolic and few, and no governmental action supported them.
The USA Patriot Act, as well as the proposed Patriot Act II, allows for arrests and convictions on the basis of secret evidence, retroactivity of the law, suspension of constitutional rights for U.S. citizens declared “enemy combatants,” extension of the notion of “material support” for terrorism to valid Muslim charitable contributions, conducting secret arrests and interrogations, turning over persons arrested to foreign agencies for purposes of torture, and profiling Muslim and Arabs.
The registration requirement for Muslims and Arabs in the U.S. stands out for its constitutional infringement.
Another measure that violates our international legal obligations under the Geneva Convention is the detention of Taliban POWs and their treatment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
High ground was lost
It is obvious that we cannot hold the high moral ground in relationship to our opponents when we engage in such conduct.
Maybe worse, as time will surely tell, all of this was unnecessary.
It may be too late for the president to stop a war.
Hopefully, he will live up to his representations that all possible effort shall be made to minimize harm to the Iraqi people and to that country’s infrastructure, that the U.S. will use all its possible resources to avoid a humanitarian disaster in that country and it will be engaged in nation-building and post-conflict justice.
The U.S. will not be judged by a swift victory over Iraqi armed forces. That is expected. It will be judged on the basis of what happens to the Iraqi people and on what it will do to help rebuild that nation and bring to justice those who have committed such terrible crimes in the past 30 years.
