Dan Rather HOW DO you get to Iraq? For President George W. Bush, the answer might well be the same as the punch line to that old joke about Carnegie Hall: practice, practice, practice. Practice -- gained by answering hard questions posed from those in the US government, the United Nations and elsewhere -- has honed and streamlined his case for why the United States might need to go to war against Iraq.
The one-liner that Iraq is part of an 'axis of evil' has evolved into a more articulate line of reasoning: (a) Iraq already has some weapons of mass destruction and might be developing others. (b) Iraq is demonstrably hostile to the United States and its allies. (c) Sept. 11 has awakened America to threats at home and abroad, and provided an impetus to deal with these threats pre-emptively. Therefore, (d) the United States must deal with the menace of Saddam Hussein now.
This logical progression formed the core of President Bush's address last week to the American people. It makes for a compelling argument, and political observers have generally given the President high marks for the measured tone and coherence of his speech. But it has not escaped public and Congressional notice that the content of that speech, while heavy on reasons, was light on ramifications.
President Bush stressed that passage of a Congressional resolution authorising use of force against Iraq would "not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable."
Nevertheless, he has set the bar for avoiding war very high. Now, unfettered inspections and disarmament are not enough; among other new conditions, Saddam "must cease the persecution of [Iraq's] civilian population" and "stop all illicit trade." The President also hinted strongly that nothing short of Saddam's removal from power would truly satisfy the conditions set forth.
Some see this as tough talk to convince the United Nations of US resolve. Others see it as a recipe for almost certain war. No matter the interpretation, it looks as if war is coming. And if it is, the American public and the world community want to know what comes next.
President Bush countered concerns that war against Iraq "could detract from the war against terror" with what he said was evidence that Saddam is in league with al-Qaida. He also addressed worries "that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse," but his answer did not go much beyond "The situation could hardly get worse."
Many responsible people might feel more comfortable with the prospect of war in this highly volatile region -- war against, as the President reminds us, a nation armed with weapons of mass destruction -- if they saw more evidence that the Bush administration were taking as serious a view of that war's potential consequences as it is of the causes for waging it. Potential consequences such as anarchy in Iraq, yes, but also the chance of civil unrest in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan; of Israel being pulled into the conflict; and of increased terrorism against US targets. They want to see that President Bush and his advisers have a plan for dealing with these scenarios, and for delivering on the President's promise that if war is necessary, the United States and our allies "will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbours."
President Bush has set a determined course toward Iraq, and he is well on his way. But plenty of questions remain about just what will happen once America gets there.
Dan Rather is a television news anchor. Copyright 2002 DJR Inc. Distributed by King Features Syndicate.
