|
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
||
|
Iraqi War Worries Bush's Iraqi policies raise red flags, says political expert Source: Victor Le Vine, Ph.D - (314) 935-5867 Related: Le Vine's post-9/11 speech on U.S. war on terror [St. Louis, Mo., 9-3-02] - Is the Bush Administration planning to commemorate the 9/11 anniversary with an act of war against Iraq? Are domestic political agendas, such as Republican election strategies, a driving force behind the nation's foreign policy on Iraq? These are a few of the troubling questions raised by Washington University terrorism and Middle East political expert Victor Le Vine in a commentary published Sept. 1 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Scarier still, says Le Vine, is that no one -- not even the president's closest advisors -- seems to have the slightest idea what the president intends to do. Le Vine, a professor of political science in Arts & Sciences, is available for further discussion of his views on the prospects and implications of a war with Iraq. The full text of his commentary is provided below with permission of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Bush keeps Saddam -- and Americans -- in the dark By Victor T. Le Vine (Published in the Editorial section of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, September 1, 2002.) It's good to know that even some of the president's most important supporters share our collective anxiety about the direction his administration is taking. All we do know is that he is seriously thinking about launching some kind of pre-emptive attack on Iraq, and that he hasn't decided when or how; that he has already pre-positioned troops, aircraft, naval units and equipment near the Iraqi periphery, and is in the process of positioning more; and that his military planners have been busy cooking up war scenarios, some of which were apparently leaked to the press by nervous national legislators and/or their staff people.
So it's good to know that we are not alone in our anxieties, particularly since the first anniversary of 9/11 is coming up very soon, and there is that gnawing worry in the pit of some of our stomachs that George W. may be planning something quite extraordinary to commemorate the day. The worst part of it all is the realization that after reading what Kissinger, Scowcroft, Baker, Armey, et al., have said and written about Iraq and pre-emptive war and the manifold evils committed by Saddam Hussein, not one of them seems to have the slightest idea what the president intends to do. He hasn't let Congress in on his thinking or paid much attention to Colin Powell's protestations or consulted anyone except Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who collectively comprise the hawks' faction in the administration. Equally in the dark, of course, is Saddam Hussein, and he has already issued some of the colorful bluster for which he is justifiably famous. One would certainly hope that if decisions about attacking Iraq have already been taken, that Saddam would be kept in the dark about them, but then of course he cannot be unaware of all those hostile preparations taking place on or close to his borders. At all events, the president hasn't taken us, or some of his closest friends, into his confidence (though he has promised to clarify and justify everything soon), and at this juncture, given all his friends' warnings and cautionary words, I'm not sure if I'm not more worried about the president's intentions than I am about Saddam's. If all this were not enough to worry us, there is more: First, there is the very real possibility that decisions about a possible attack on Iraq are being driven more by domestic political considerations than by any threat posed by Saddam and his regime. The temptations involved are hardly negligible. For one, finally settling Daddy's old score with Saddam, if it could be accomplished quickly and decisively, and with only minimal loss of American life, would represent a major victory for George W. and an object lesson to all those weak-kneed Arabs in the neighborhood. And then, of course, again given speed, decisiveness, and low casualties, a knockout punch against Saddam would rally Americans round the flag and in the rosy aftermath of victory, very likely give the Senate back to the Republicans, reduce the Democrats to inconsequence, and return George W. to the White House in 2004. Second, there is the distressing possibility that the White House has no plan, or cannot come up with one, be it because the president really cannot make up his mind or because his advisers are so divided that no one voice or combination of voices speaks persuasively enough to get him off the dime. This may be a White House intoxicated with the easy victory over the Taliban, paralyzed by the grandiose promises of the war against terrorism and evil, and mired in the swamp of self-serving cliches that have, thus far, passed for a foreign policy. If so, this is not the kind of environment in which cool-headed, rational decisions about Iraq can be made. What, me worry? You bet. Victor T. Le Vine is a professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis. |
|
News & Information Home | Office of Public Affairs | WUSTL Home
Please contact us and let us know how we can assist you. Technical problems with this Web site? Please contact news_bugs@aismail.wustl.edu. Please review the WUSTL News & Information copyright/privacy policy.
|