Dan RatherLET'S FACE IT, folks: Barring some dramatic and unforeseen development, American fighting men and women are going to war in Iraq.
President Bush's case for military
action goes like this: In the wake of September 11, the United States needs
to consider worst-case scenarios. When it comes to these, few are worse than
the prospect of Saddam Hussein delivering chemical, biological or nuclear weapons
(should he succeed in developing them) into the hands of terrorists. With America
already on a war footing, there is no time like the present for disarming Iraq.
Taken on its own, and given what we already know about Saddam Hussein, it seems like a pretty strong case. The evidence from opinion polls suggests that this case has convinced a majority of the American public. But it has not convinced everyone, and some of those whom it has not convinced are respected thinkers on foreign policy, diplomacy and military strategy, including some in the President's own party and even his White House.
For the most part, these are not traditional 'doves.' The unconvinced have generally not been against war per se but against this war, at this time. The reasons why have to do with what they see as the other worst-case scenarios that need to be taken into consideration - worst-case scenarios such as:
An invasion of Iraq destabilising the entire region. Some fear that action against Iraq could lead to widespread unrest and to the potential overthrow of the Saudi Arabian and Pakistani governments. If Pakistan fell to Muslim extremists, so this reasoning goes, al-Qaida would be all but assured access to that country's nuclear arsenal. A corollary to this scenario: Even if governments do not fall, military action against Iraq will inspire a new wave of animosity and terrorism against the United States.
A nation-building nightmare in Iraq. Is Saddam Hussein, despot and tyrant that he is, the only thing holding Iraq together? Some experts on Iraq think so, and they predict factional civil war and near anarchy of the sort witnessed in Afghanistan if and when he is toppled - a fertile breeding ground for terrorism and the last thing American troops want to be caught in the middle of.
Saddam has weapons of mass destruction: Will he use them? The thought of US soldiers being met with chemical or biological weapons is a sobering and terrifying thought, and it also raises the question of how the United States would retaliate against such a strike.
War as an acceptable political tactic. The worst-case scenarios aren't limited to the international arena. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle spoke out in forceful terms against what he saw as President Bush playing partisan politics with national security. It should be noted that Senator Daschle's remarks on the Senate floor came after the Democrats' weekly 'message' meeting, so it's easy to see that neither side should be held immune from this charge.
But dyed-in-the-wool Democrats aren't the only ones concerned with President Bush's insistence on a vote authorising use of force in Iraq before Congress breaks for mid-term elections, given his political adviser Karl Rove's supposed advice to Republican Congressional candidates to "focus on the war."
We have entered the era of competing worst-case scenarios, where no option looks very good. Keeping weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's hands, protecting the United States from terrorism, maintaining a bipartisan foreign policy - these are goals most Americans share. But after 9/11, the stakes are so very high. If one thing is clear, it is this: Americans need more than ever to make their choices with the utmost care and consideration.
- Dan Rather is a television news
anchor. Copyright 2002 DJR Inc. Distributed by King Features Syndicate
