Political Roundtable

February 10, 2003

It seems as each day passes the United States grows closer to waging war with Iraq. And as a new day begins, the U.S. finds itself growing further apart from continental Europe. For the first time in decades, the United States cannot count on the support of France and Germany if war should commence. While war might not necessarily be inevitable, the United States' relationship with both of these countries has suffered greatly.

Though President Bush has been unable to provide a "smoking gun" against Sadam Hussein's regime, he has produced enough evidence to establish that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, has used them in the past, and is hiding them from the UN inspectors. Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech before the UN's General Assembly might not have swayed the French or Germans, or for that matter the Russians, into the US camp, but it did place solid evidence before the world of Iraq's attempt to play a cat and mouse game of catch our weapons if you can. While France relishes its role as a gadfly to US policy, and usually can be expected to fall in line after some initial grandstanding, the German's ambivalence to war is suprising. Mohammed Atta called Hamburg, Germany home for many years, and Germany itself has seen the results of Islamic terrorist activity in the past. Also, as noted in a recent poll, Germans favor going to war but only if the rest of the world supports such action. Thus Germany sees itself acting as a "peacemaker," yet willing to relent if everyone else supports such action.

While war with Iraq might be inevitable, and necessary, it should be entered into solely for the reason of deposing Saddam Hussein. Anything more will be counterproductive to the United States. If the Iraqis give in and welcome an American invading alliance with open arms, war hopefully will be short. However, there is no reason to believe that such a result is probable. War with Iraq may be vicious, with endless firefights through the streets of Baghdad. It is doubtful that all of Hussein's generals will lay down their weapons upon the first sight of Americans, as many of them are nothing more than cronies of their leader. To them, fighting to the death may be more honorable that giving up and facing possible retribution from Iraqis or war crimes for past acts.

Additionally, the US must avoid all appearances that it is nothing more than a crusading force against Islam itself. Al-Qaeda Terrorists will use such a war to ratchet up their anti-American rhetoric. If Islamic extremists can point to 1000 year old crusades as evidence of Western domination on Islam, a slaughter of helpless civilians will only convert more young Islamic men and women to the cause of Bin-Laden.

Thus the president finds himself in an awkward situation. He faces an enemy he needs to confront, but on terms that are anything but predictable. He might have to send Americans into street battles to remove an enemy that might possibly use its WMD on our troops or innocent civilians here or abroad if defeat is imminent. And he may have to wage war without the support of some of the US's closest allies.

Continued UN inspections might delay the inevitable because, unless Saddam Hussein steps down from power, President Bush is determined to seek his removal through any means. This might not make the best policy for our allies, or in the judgment of world opinion, but it may make the world a safer place. Or it could destabilize an entire region and create an even greater threat to the US. There are no easy answers when it comes to war with Iraq.