THE RACE TO WAR: New York Times on Iraq -- A Fisking

Let's start with the headline. The truce which ended the Gulf War in 1991 made it a condition of a cessation of hostilities that Saddam completely disarm. That meant primarily his massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and his research into nukes. Since that date, Saddam has done everything he can to avoid such disarmament. After some initial success by the U.N., the inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998. So Saddam has been in violation of the terms of the truce for over eleven years. He has been given chance after chance to change his position. The U.S. agreed to a new U.N. attempt to disarm Saddam last fall, but Saddam's cooperation has, by the estimate of every fair observer and by the U.N. inspectors themselves, to be less than satisfactory. This decade-long attempt to get Saddam to agree to the terms of the truce in 1991 is then described by the Times as a "race" to war. In fact, it's the slowest, most protracted attempt to force a despot's hand in recent memory. It's an eleven-year rush to war. What, one wonders, would be taking our time?

Nope. It began eleven years ago with the violated truce. Strictly speaking, the war never ended since the conditions of the truce have been violated. What short memories these editorialists have.

The United Nations will hear the report of its weapons inspectors this week and begin debating the wisdom of endorsing a war against Iraq. But the Bush administration seems to be operating on a different plane, gearing up for an invasion it appears determined to conduct whether or not its allies approve. At best, it may give the Security Council a few more weeks to consider whether to approve an attack on Iraq. We urge the administration to brake the momentum toward war.

But doesn't the Times recognize that the only reason we have even a fraudulent Saddamite attempt to appear to cooperate with the U.N. is a direct function of the credible "momentum toward war"? Before Bush ever threatened real consequences, Saddam got away with mass murder, and with the largely unfettered development of weapons of mass destruction. The only thing that made Saddam even listen to the U.N. was Bush's military resolve. Yet now the Times wants to remove the one means we have to achieve a goal they say they support.

This is a huge concession. At least the Times acknowledges the terrible evil lurking in Baghdad.

No one who knows his history can doubt that he is secretly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

This is an even bigger concession. What the Times is saying is that Saddam is deliberately trying to thwart the U.N., is not cooperating with the inspectors, and has a clear intention to get weapons of mass destruction for use either by Saddam directly or by terrorist proxies. What this means is that not only is our delay in tackling Saddam running the risk of allowing such weapons to get in the hands of terrorists or Saddamite agents; it also means that our delay may actually accelerate the day when a nuclear-armed Saddam can wield nuclear blackmail over the entire region. And yet the Times still wants us to do nothing militarily to stop this!

But this war should be waged only with broad international support. To go it alone, or nearly alone, is to court disaster both domestically and internationally.

[My comment: Breaking News Today is that 21 Nations will support the U.S. and allow overflights or access. And Powell still has not made Bush's case to the U.N.]

So let's get this straight. Even if Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; even if he is in clear violation of U.N. resolutions; even if he and his proxies amount to a dire threat against the lives of Americans, the U.S. president should do nothing unless the French, Germans and Russians agree. This isn't foreign policy. It's the abdication of foreign policy. And it's certainly a direct assault upon the credibility of the United Nations.

Mr. Bush has enough support among American voters to undertake the kind of clean, quickly successful military action his father directed in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. But every poll, every anecdotal reading of the American mood makes it clear that he has not sold the public on anything difficult or drawn out. Iraq is a large and complex Arab nation of 24 million people in the heart of the Middle East. America's overwhelming advantage in firepower might not prevent a prolonged period of street-to-street fighting in Baghdad that would be murderous to Americans and Iraqis alike. A desperate Iraq might try to attack Israel, disable Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields or even destroy its own oil industry before it fell into American hands. It might fire whatever chemical and biological weapons it has against American troops. These are risks that could be well worth taking, but the American public has not signed on for them. This nation should never begin a fight it is not prepared to carry out to the bitter end, no matter what the cost.

The same argument could, of course, have been made - and was indeed made - before the first Gulf War. What it amounts to saying is that the U.S. cannot act in its own defense unless the public overwhelmingly supports every possible contingency that might accompany war. The truth is: that will never happen and has never happened in the post-Second World War era. And the Times knows this. What this position does is to restrict American intervention to the most minor contingencies. It means retreating from any serious threat of military force in any region where we might become embroiled in a difficult or protracted conflict. No Korean war. No Gulf War I. No Bosnia. No Kosovo. Not only must a president cede such decisions to the president of France and the Chancellor of Germany. He must also cede such decisions to the polls. Why, one wonders, didn't the Times oppose president Clinton's "rush to war" in the Balkans, when there was no Security Council support and the threat of a Russian veto?

That isn't true of this engagement, and the fault lies mainly with the president himself. Mr. Bush has never been open with the American people about the possible cost of this war. He has not even been clear about exactly why we are preparing to fight. Sometimes his aim appears to be disarming the Iraqis or punishing Baghdad for defying the United Nations; sometimes the goal is nothing short of deposing Mr. Hussein. The first lesson of the Vietnam era was that Americans should not be sent to die for aims the country only vaguely understands and accepts.

How many speeches does the president have to give? His position after 9/11 was absolutely clear. We were at war with international terrorism and its state sponsors and enablers. Iraq is one such country, the most dangerous and lethal of the bunch. We therefore have two options: pretend the world hasn't changed, leave Saddam in place, and react defensively to every new terrorist outrage. Or actually have a strategy to fight and win. Sometimes I wonder if the Times would only endorse a war against Saddam after hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by a Saddam-manufactured chemical or nuclear device. The question is: should we or should we not wait for that calamity before we act to prevent it? The Times implicitly argues that there is no danger of such a calamity. How can they be sure? What assurances of Saddam's good intentions do they have that the rest of us don't?

The second lesson of Vietnam was that the country should never enter into a conflict without a clear exit strategy. We have nothing close to a plan for how, once in Iraq, we get back out again. Even if Mr. Hussein is easily eliminated, the United States will be left to govern and police Iraq for an extended period. Without clearly acknowledging the possibility to the American public, Washington could easily find itself involved in an open-ended occupation.

Yep, this is an extended commitment. Just as our commitment to a newly liberated Afghanistan is open-ended. As is our continued commitment to Germany - over fifty years after liberation. But that doesn't mean there is never an end. And it doesn't mean it's not a venture worth under-taking.

These risks would be tolerable if the rest of the world were working alongside the United States, prepared to share the danger of the invasion and ‹ much more critically ‹ the responsibility for creating a more humane and progressive Iraqi government in its wake. There are some threats and some causes that require fighting even if America has to fight alone, but this isn't one of them.

Why not? Is the threat of a chemical attack on New York not worth fighting to prevent? Is a nuclear-armed Saddam, able to control a huge amount of the oil resources for the entire West, not worth fighting to prevent? The insouciance of the Times toward these nightmare scenarios - as nightmarish as the U.S. has ever encountered - beggars belief. And in a liberated Iraq, why does the Times assume that the French, Germans and Russians won't be clamoring for access, if only to make money? Post-Saddam, the problem won't be enough foreign help. It will be too much.

And the world ‹ like the American public ‹ is not yet really convinced that a Hussein-free Middle East is a goal worth fighting a war for. Britain, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia and a number of Persian Gulf states have offered military assistance or access to bases, but there should be no mistaking this ad hoc group for a united international front. France, Germany, Russia, China and even Canada are not on board. They may all have their parochial reasons for not joining the fight, but their resistance to war should be a powerful signal that if anything goes wrong ‹ and something will go wrong sooner or later ‹ the United States will bear the responsibility alone.

And the U.S. is unable to bear that responsibility alone? Is that what the Times is saying? What a long way we've come since the Kennedy era promise to bear any burden and pay any price for the defense of freedom. Here we have the Times saying that the U.S. shouldn't bear this burden, even when the survival of its own citizens is at stake.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the Bush administration's campaign to get broader international support is the implication that France or any other nation that fails to get on board now will be cut out of the administration of postwar Iraq and its oil fields. Freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's brutality and freeing the world from the threat of his belligerence are causes worth fighting for.

Hold on a minute. Didn't the Times just argue that this wasn't one of the causes that's worth fighting for? Well, actually the Times said that this wasn't a cause worth fighting for alone. So a grave moral evil that's worth fighting against nevertheless should be left alone if we can't have overwhelming international support. We already have Britain, Spain, Italy, Australia, Poland, the Czech Republic and others. But for this moral cause to be worth it, we need France, Germany, Russia and all the countries that have a direct interest in keeping their trade with Saddam. All I can say is: morality worth fighting for is awfully easily traded away in the mindset of the New York Times. I expect this kind of realpolitik from Henry Kissinger. But from Gail Collins?

Thanks for the great post.

If Clinton were president and formulating this response to Iraq (highly unlikely, but pretend...)The NY Times would be squarely behind him, without a doubt. The liberal stand is to set aside common sense, a clear refusal to connect the dots purely because GWB is president.

Though I am a nasty "isolationist" myself and have been opposed to every US foreign war and incursion since the end of the cold war- I still can't help but appreciate a good skewering of the Times. It is quite obvious that the Times opposes Bush's call for war with Iraq solely because of rank partisanship. They jumped on board and cheerlead Clinton and his criminal bombing of Kosovo for 78 grueling days. That bombing was done in clear violation of US Law (not even a resolution was passed), International law, and even the NATO charter itself! And yet the Times supported it! If Clinton were calling for this war instead of Bush there is not a doubt in my mind that the Times would have a page one story on Sadaam's brutality every day and an editorial every day calling on Europe to get on board.

Though I am a nasty "isolationist" myself and have been opposed to every US foreign war and incursion since the end of the cold war . . .

One exception- Bush II's invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11.

I'll give you that. If you ignore the words, the Times can be quite useful for things like cleaning windows, wrapping fish, etc. But I still prefer the Weekly World News.

>>prefer the Weekly World News."

I loove WWN -- it's the only tabloid left that has that "800 lb baby eats self" type of headlines. The Inquirer and the rest just run around after celebrities and looking for the consipracy that killed both JFKs.

Yup. Any tabloid with color photos is being pretentious. The rest of them pretend to relevance; WWN is gloriously, in-your-face irrelevant, knows it, and plays to it.

If Clinton were calling for this war instead of Bush there is not a doubt in my mind that the Times would have a page one story on Sadaam's brutality every day and an editorial every day calling on Europe to get on board.

Of course. Clinton gives them their fondest dreams--abortion and perversion ad nauseam. Therefore let him rape, murder, or commit war crimes if he wants to. After all he's politically correct on the basic issues, buggery and baby-killing.

"making Bush's case to the UN"

And ... I heard somebody mention on FOX (not sure if it was a newsperson or a guest), that the Security Council cannot afford to NOT support the USA because if they don't - they will prove their agreements have no substance, and they will become unnecessary as an agent of peace.

There is no way the UN is going to GIVE UP their presumed power.

"The NYT is merely partly irrelevant (the part with the words on it)."

The NY Times crossword is relevant. The rest is not.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.