Crisis year for U.S. and Bush
While politics and life proceed more or less as usual in America these days, they shouldn’t. That’s because the foreign policy challenges of 2003 are so grave, six months from now we may be living in a different world, for better or worse.
How the confrontations with Iraq and North Korea turn out — and whether terrorism hits the United States again — will alter America’s position in the world.
Not incidentally, the year’s events will also have a decisive impact on domestic politics. In effect, President Bush is betting his presidency on being able to safely navigate the nation through these multiple storms.
The best outcome in the face-off with Iraq would be a victory without war — or, perhaps better yet, a decisive victory in a short war with few casualties.
The scenarios for victory without war would be: 1) Saddam Hussein’s capitulation to the United Nations, including an agreement to reveal and destroy his weapons of mass destruction in return for staying in power; 2) his agreement to go into exile; and 3) his assassination.
The problem with the first option is that it is likely to be a ruse: he wouldn’t destroy everything and would still be in charge. The other options, too, have downsides. Saddam likely won’t accept exile for fear he would soon be brought before the World Court on war crimes charges, which would be entirely appropriate. And assassination might lead to a scramble for power among generals and the potential sale of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.
The ideal outcome would be one in which U.S.-led forces scored a quick victory, cheering Iraqis greeted them as liberators, and scientists revealed vast secret weapons caches.
Pessimists fear that the United States could be bogged down in bloody urban warfare, get hit with chemical and biological weapons, and set loose regional turmoil that could lead to the toppling of friendly Islamic regimes.
The worst case would be the takeover of Pakistan by Islamic militants, furnishing the terrorist movement with nuclear weapons — exactly the outcome the United States is trying to prevent.
Even absent that, there’s a possibility that Al Qaeda will launch terrorist attacks against the United States during an Iraq war to make it seem a war of the West against Islam.
There is a possibility that the Iraq issue will not be resolved this winter if France, Russia and other U.N. Security Council members somehow persuade the administration to stand down and let weapons inspections continue.
But this isn’t likely. Bush is sending 150,000 troops to the region. It’s unlikely he’ll let them sit there through the Middle East summer or, having sent them, bring them home. The chances of war this winter seem to be 70-30 or perhaps 80-20. Hopefully, Bush can win world support for the effort by revealing hard evidence that Saddam Hussein has been concealing weapons of mass destruction.
If he can’t do that, the U.S. will have to fight with Britain, Spain, Italy and a few other allies and discover the evidence after the victory. The problem is that North Korea has never lived up to any agreement it’s ever made and can’t be expected to do so in the future.
Bush needs to persuade China to threaten a cutoff of commerce to North Korea if it does not completely give up its weapons program and submit to a thorough inspections regime.
If China is not willing, then Bush needs to take the issue to the United Nations — and be prepared to act militarily if North Korea refuses. This will provoke as great a crisis as the current Iraq confrontation.
Let’s hope that the 2004 election is fought over economic policy. It will mean that we’ve come through the crises of 2003 safely.
(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)