Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
A Times Editorial
President Bush has begun a dialogue on Iraq with Congress and the United Nations, but vital questions about the White House's war plans still haven't been answered.
© St. Petersburg Times, published September 17, 2002
After weeks of threatening to go it alone, President Bush has gone to Congress and the United Nations in pursuit of domestic and international backing for looming military action against Iraq. The new diplomatic initiative is welcome. By seeking a formal resolution of support from Congress, the president sets in motion the sort of national debate that should precede such a fateful commitment of U.S. military force. By working to rebuild an international alliance comparable to the one that prosecuted the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the United States can mitigate the risks and costs of war. Perhaps most important of all, by deferring a unilateral, pre-emptive military attack against Iraq, the Bush administration can avoid setting a troubling precedent that might backfire on the United States and its allies.
The growing international pressure already has persuaded Iraq to promise to allow international weapons inspectors back into the country, although nobody takes that pledge seriously yet. Until Iraq's intentions are clear, everyone -- most of all, the president himself -- should consider the new dialogue in Congress and the U.N. Security Council the beginning of a process, not its end.
In his speech to the United Nations last week, the president laid out a compelling summary of Saddam Hussein's past misdeeds, including his defiance of a series of U.N. directives. However, the president did not even hint at the existence of any new Iraqi provocation, such as the rapid development of a nuclear weapons program, that would constitute an imminent danger requiring an immediate military response. Yet administration officials are insisting that if the Security Council does not quickly crack down on Iraq, the United Nations will be doomed to irrelevancy and the United States will move forward alone. Such an ultimatum is premature.
Meanwhile, Congress has barely begun a serious debate on Iraq policy. For months, the White House refused to cooperate with congressional deliberations on the issue. The president and his top advisers say they are willing to participate in that process over the next few weeks. They owe that much to the American people, who deserve a clearer picture of the threat posed by Iraq, and of the potential benefits and risks of U.S. military action. Yet the White House threatens to short-circuit that process by insisting on a congressional vote in October -- just before November's congressional elections. Neither Republicans nor Democrats should attempt to win partisan advantage by manipulating the timetable for congressional action on such a grave matter.
In any case, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have signaled that they are prepared to support the president if he makes a convincing case for military action, but some members are still waiting for answers to crucial questions. For example, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., says the president still hasn't answered these questions: "If we invade Iraq, what allies will we have? Who governs after Saddam? What is the objective? Have we calculated the consequences, particularly the unintended consequences?"
We would add these questions: What is the evidence that Hussein constitutes a more serious threat than he did a year ago, when the White House was satisfied with existing military and economic sanctions against Iraq? To what extent would a major attack on Iraq divert resources from our broader war against terrorism? What would be the likely added costs if we attack Iraq without the international support we enjoyed in 1991?
The American people and much of the rest of the world will support the Bush administration if they hear credible answers to those and other important questions. The president deserves credit for beginning a dialogue with Congress and the United Nations, but he should not expect formal expressions of support for military action against Iraq until he finishes the job of making the case for it.