John Rapley - Foreign FocusIN HIS State of the Union address on Tuesday night, United States President George W. Bush dispelled any doubts that war on Iraq is not imminent. While he did not actually announce battle plans, even hinting that Saddam Hussein could still disarm peacefully, that window of opportunity is now all but shut. Indeed, Mr. Bush went so far as to tell his troops to prepare for action.
The US administration has apparently made up its mind. The fact that Secretary of State Colin Powell normally a restraining influence on hawks in the US Cabinet has been speaking more belligerently of late suggests that the war party has everyone in the White House on board. Now, they must sway the American people and the international community.
Neither will be easy. Public support for a war against Iraq has been slipping in the US, though Mr. Bush's speech will likely give it a brief bounce. Nevertheless, Congressional Democrats, still smarting from their defeats in the November elections, have decided they need to be more confrontational. So far, that strategy seems to be working for them. Thus, their demand that Mr. Bush present the Congress with persuasive arguments for war are likely to strengthen.
Constitutionally, Mr. Bush does not need the consent of Congress to go to war; politically, Congress and the public will rally behind him if he does launch an invasion. Nonetheless, if the war is anything other than a resounding and quick success, sentiment will turn against Mr. Bush.
Aware of that danger, he has begun a sales pitch to the American people. Tuesday's speech was the first instalment in that marketing campaign.
Regarding international support, Mr. Bush received an unexpected boost on Monday when the United Nations weapons inspectors issued their interim reports to the Security Council. The nuclear inspectors said they were finding no evidence of nuclear weapons. The chemical inspectors were less sanguine. They presented the Council with a catalogue of Iraqi intransigence and obfuscation which appeared to bolster Mr. Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein will never willingly abandon his weapons of mass destruction.
The inspectors said the Iraqis were, in fact, accommodating them and co-operating with all their requests, but that it was not enough. They maintained that if Iraq genuinely wanted to disarm, it would be more active in identifying its weapons and helping to dismantle them. They said they had the impression Iraq was still doing what it could to conceal its arsenal.
All the same, they believed that with time, they could find and eliminate all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But time, according to President Bush, is running short. Moreover, he apparently feels he now has all the justification he needs for war.
We outsiders wonder why the US has made itself judge, jury and executioner in a case in which the charged is guilty until it proves itself innocent. That, however, is not how the American Govern-ment sees it. Not without justification, the US maintains that Iraq was already found guilty, and sentenced (to disarmament) way back at the end of the Gulf War. It reneged on its promises. Far from being a judge, the US now portrays itself as a parole officer, ensuring that a sentence the disarmament of Iraq by whatever means needed is completed.
However, if most everyone agrees that the disarmament of Saddam Hussein is a desirable goal, they are deeply divided over whether war offers the best means to do it. Most of the international community, including most of America's allies, want to give the inspectors more time. The US says the world cannot afford to wait, because Saddam already has ties to terrorists. It says it will produce evidence to this effect at a meeting of the UN Security Council next week.
If the US can actually back up its claim, it may well win over the sceptics. Russia, which has been cool on war talk and holds a veto on the Security Council, hinted as much this week.
I have my doubts that the evidence will be sufficiently compelling. Consequently, if international backing for the war fails to materialise, the US will have to go it (largely) alone. Mr. Bush has said he is prepared for that eventuality. But in that event, the risk to American lives will probably rise sharply.
John Rapley is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, University of the West Indies, Mona.
