But one piece of war prep is missing: a clear, comprehensive rationale for the role in the world America will assume the moment the smart bombs start falling on Saddam’s armored palaces. President Bush–by nature a doer, not an explainer–thinks he’s said enough to prepare the nation and the world for war. He hasn’t. The clarity of purpose that seemed so evident after 9-11 has been lost. He needs to re-explain things, to his own people and to the planet.
He has a chance to do so soon. Sometimes history schedules events for dramatic effect. An example is approaching. On Monday, Jan. 27, U.N. inspectors in Iraq will pass judgment of a sort on Saddam: on whether he possesses weapons of mass destruction or, at least, on whether he has been honest about his ability to manufacture them. The day after that deadline, the president will give what could well be the defining speech of his presidency, a State of the Union address that probably will serve as a preamble to war. He established his power and popularity with his performance in the months after 9-11. The wartime decisions he is about to make–and his ability to rally support for them–will determine whether he gets re-elected next year. The debate about Bush’s economic package is a political sideshow by comparison.
The fundamental questions the president has to address are simple enough: What exactly is our mission in the world? And, why is it the right one to secure America’s future? The answer to the first question has become muddled since last year as Bush propounded one principle after another–and then seemed to serially ignore them. At various times, he’s played the presidency as Dirty Harry, Emperor Augustus, Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher and Dag Hammarskjold. He’s been skillful in each role, but the variety show is confusing. The polls show as much. Americans support the use of force in Iraq, but only by a 58-42 percent ratio. By 66-30 percent, they want to attack only if sanctioned to do so by a U.N. Security Council resolution.
Here’s the progression of principles–and principals:
Dirty Harry: Naturally enough after the horror of 9-11, Bush strode out onto the world stage as a tough cop, determined to get his man. His No. 1 goal, he said, was to bring to justice the perpetrators of the attack, “dead or alive.” He followed with another categorical statement: Any nation or group that assisted or “harbored” global terrorists would be considered The Enemy. But you can’t run the world as Robocop, as the president soon came to realize. Osama & Co. are still on the loose, evidently. And there is no way to pursue to its logical conclusion a policy that says, in essence, “We are at war with you if you haven’t rid your territory of any known international terrorists.” Otherwise we would be at war with, say, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia–and our new best friend, Pakistan.
Winston Churchill: Last year’s State of the Union produced the most famous–and hard-to-explain–foreign policy principle of the Bush presidency so far: the “axis of evil.” Here was Bush as Churchill, identifying a specific conspiracy against democracy and vowing to vanquish it. But, of course, there is an obvious problem with making the “axis” the guiding focus of foreign policy. It hasn’t been one. We only seem to be urgent about dismantling one of the three members of the axis, Saddam’s Iraq. We’re making nice with Iran (which not only “harbors” but bankrolls some of the most bloodthirsty terrorists on the planet) and offering to sit down at the negotiating table with the third member of the Trio of Terror, North Korea. And why these three and not the other nations on the State Department list of state sponsors of terror? Don’t they have weapons of mass destruction, too? Syria and Libya almost certainly do.
Augustus: In a National Security directive last year, the Bush Administration declared–in fuller and more philosophical fashion than it had earlier–a new doctrine: America’s right to attack any country or group that was developing weapons of mass destruction for possible use against the United States. It’s been called the “Doctrine of Pre-emption” (a legal term, but one that has been hijacked for use in the world of national security). In reality, Bush was propounding a “Doctrine of Prevention.” And the United States was assuming a right derived from overwhelming power: to keep the peace in the world by disarming, in advance, potential foes, and installing a one-size-fits-all cultural, legal and military structure everywhere. Think Rome, and the Pax Romana. And it’s true that we are the strongest nation, relative to the rest of the planet, since the days of Augustus. But do we really want to apply the doctrine comprehensively? If so, what about North Korea? The answer the administration gives, sotto voce, is simple if disturbing: It’s too late to “prevent” anything; North Korea has had at least two plutonium-based nukes for years. If that’s so, why was North Korea in the “axis” in the first place?
Margaret Thatcher: The National Security paper also expounded the most sweeping principle of all: that it was our goal to bring the fruits of democracy to the entire world. Now that sounds obvious, in a way, but it’s not something that American leaders had dared to say in any official way since the days of Manifest Destiny. When the Soviet Union died, so, apparently, did the idea of “peaceful coexistence.” We want peace, of course, but Bush is saying something far grander: that the only fruitful and moral existence for human beings on the planet is as members of a society with freely elected leaders, free speech, private property, the rule of law and all the other essentials of free-market, democratic capitalism as we understand it to operate. Does that mean we will oppose, and even fight, any country that doesn’t operate in that fashion? What if they completely reject our assumptions, as Muslim theocracies do? Are they the Enemy? Ask the Saudis about that.
Dag Hammarskjold: Bush bristled at the notion of allowing the U.N. into the ballgame until he realized it would be useful to play for time in Iraq and build world support of American action. Then, in an act of breathtaking and very shrewd diplomatic chutzpah, he scolded the U.N. into stepping up against Saddam. But does that now mean that we and the president are bound by U.N. decisions? Not according to the president. He’s vowing to lead a “coalition of the willing” to destroy Saddam’s regime if he doesn’t admit he possesses weapons of mass destruction, even if the U.N. inspectors can’t find any. He said he cared about the role of the U.N.? Not really.
Having played all these roles, and espoused all these theories, Bush now has to regather, rethink, and re-explain. Why Iraq, if the UN finds no weapons? Why Iraq, and not North Korea or Iran? Are we there to get rid of Saddam, get rid of weapons of mass destruction or “bring democracy” to the Cradle of Civilization. If it’s to bring democracy, why not do the same where it really counts–in, say, Saudi Arabia? Why would doing any of this make us safer? Might not a truly democratic Pakistan vote to declare war on us? How long do we plan to stay in Iraq, if we go? What kind of government do we envision? What would such a beachhead mean for the rest of the Middle East, the Arab World, the Muslim World? Do we accept the existence of theocracies there? The Islamic law of Sharia there? If not, why not? If so, for how long, if not forever? How much will Iraq cost?
I’m told that the president has come to relish the big set piece speeches. An orderly fellow with a justifiable wariness of ad lib answers, he prefers the process of assembling and giving a major address, like a CEO issuing an annual report. “He knows he has to use the State of the Union to, in part, explain the rationale for sending American sons and daughters into what could be harm’s way,” Communications Director Dan Bartlett told me. The country, and the world, will be listening.
