Conservative Advocate: Blunders on the road to Baghdad
For the past year, as President Bush proclaimed the dangers presented by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and prepared to compel its disarmament — either peacefully or, if necessary, by force — I have confined myself to arguing in favor of his position. It seemed a waste of good ink to complain about the inevitable blunders his administration made along the way, when its central case was, as I saw it, so overwhelmingly convincing.
In addition, let me admit that my own vision wasn’t always 20/20. Winston Churchill made it a rule never to criticize, after the fact, mistakes he had not condemned when they were made. If I followed that high-minded rule, this column could not be written. But it is important for us (and for him) to learn from Bush’s mistakes, even if we recognize them only in hindsight. So, now that the war is under way, with every prospect of victory, let me go back over recent history and point out some of the mistakes made along the way.
In retrospect, it seems clear Bush should have taken the trouble to respond, firmly but in a friendly spirit, to the outrage generated among many of America’s friends by the seeming arrogance with which we rejected the Kyoto Accord on the environment and the International Criminal Court. America’s critics certainly managed to generate the impression, not only that we opposed these initiatives (which I believe we were entirely right in doing), but that we didn’t give a hoot what the rest of the world thought of our position. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States has been “the world’s only superpower,” and our seeming contempt for other views rubbed millions of people the wrong way.
Surely Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell could have done more to emphasize the distress we felt at our necessary disagreement with our friends on the issues in question, and the serious concerns underlying our decision. As the late Sen. George Murphy once said, “You can do many things, if you say them kindly, and with a smile.”
Second, various spokesmen for the administration, from President Bush on down, have wandered all over the map in explaining why it is absolutely essential to disarm Iraq before it acquires nuclear weapons. There is one good reason, and one only: to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction before the 21st century becomes a global madhouse in which every petty dictator on earth has the power to inflict unacceptable damage on any nation he dislikes, very definitely including the United States (which may not even know which maniac inflicted it). Democratizing Iraq, or ridding the world of an evil dictator, are noble goals, but neither is worth the life of a single U.S. Marine.
Third and finally, it now seems clear that going to the United Nations was a mistake, even though the reward (resolution 1441) seemed at the time a prize worth having. Secretary Powell simply didn’t expect France to stab him in the back by refusing to support 1441’s clear meaning and giving anti-Americanism four months to mobilize all over the world.
What explains France’s action? Since the end of the Cold War, America’s global hegemony has inevitably given rise to attempts to create a counter-balance. China would be glad to volunteer for the role, but the world will not follow the lead of a Communist relic. Russia is too weak, and under Vladimir Putin has shown a tendency to side with America (at times), rather than challenge it.
Chirac simply couldn’t resist the temptation to opportunize on the wave of anti-Americanism so largely generated by our own mistakes.
But George W. Bush is right on the fundamental question, and military victory in Iraq will validate his position.
(William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.)