Divided opinions on Iraq within the Administration go back well before the start of the inspections. On August 26, Vice President Cheney declared, "The return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his [Hussein's] compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow back in his box." He and his like-minded colleagues in the administration made it known that the inspections effort holds no credibility in their eyes and would, in fact, place the international community in a weaker position to address its concerns in Iraq.
Colin Powell leads the pragmatist camp. He and several senior Republican leaders, including officials from the George H.W. Bush Administration, lobbied the President to return to the United Nations and push for a strengthened inspection regime. Powell suggested that inspections alone could deliver disarmament and a changed regime. On October 3, he said, "If you can get the inspectors back in, that can make sure under a tightened, tough regime, with consequences for failure to perform, you can disarm this society. ... Then in effect you have a different kind of regime no matter who's in Baghdad." President Bush sided with Powell and used the threat of war to unify the UN Security Council and produce a much tougher inspection regime than most thought possible. He subtly shifted the administration's focus from "removing" Saddam to "disarming" Saddam.
The President has repeatedly stated, as he said in Cincinnati on October 7, that war is neither "imminent [nor] unavoidable." Despite the media's macabre fascination with the prospect of combat, if the president is telling the truth, he has not yet decided to go to war. And for good reason. There are several credible scenarios that could lead to catastrophe in the Middle East and at home. Even if all goes well, US troops will have to occupy Iraq for years. "Are we prepared to occupy Iraq for the next 30 to 50 years?" warns former Reagan Secretary of the Navy James Webb, with our troops as "50,000 terrorist targets." He is one of several former Republican officials who argue against war.
In a new report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, economist William Nordhaus predicts the costs of the proposed war could range from $99 billion to over $1.9 trillion over the next decade. Friday's surprise resignations of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House economic advisor Larry Lindsey underscore the fragility of the US economy and the huge economic risks war entails.
The president is likely getting sober cautionary advice from military leaders as well. Retired General Anthony Zinni, former head of the US Central Command and President Bush's special envoy for the Middle East, speaks for many when he argues, as he did this October at a Washington conference, "If we see this as a beginning of a chain of events, meaning that we intend to solve this through violent action, we're on the wrong course. First of all, I don't see that that's necessary…War and violence are a very last resort, and we have to be careful how we apply it, especially now in our position in the world." He, like former national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, urges patience and a shift in focus. In a November 21 op-ed in the Washington Post, Scowcroft praises Bush's UN victory and urges him now not to war, but to devote "the same kind of skill, audacity and laser-like attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue."
Within the Administration the hard-liners seem to dominate. But as the president moves outside his inner circle and tries to implement the policies the hawks so fervently champion, he encounters few supporters. There the views of the pragmatists are in synch with global realities, the counsel of the majority of US allies, and the wishes of the American public.
This divide is not likely to be breached anytime soon. Press reports indicate that a National Security Council principals' meeting earlier this week ended in "chaos" over disagreements on how to respond to the Iraqi declaration due December 8. Some argue that any omissions should be cited as a material breach of UN resolutions and the trigger for military action. Other officials cited by the Washington Times December 5 say "It is going to be 'material breach,' not as a casus belli but as a basis to begin hammering UNMOVIC to do more."
Secretary Powell claimed, with the passing of Resolution 1441, that the United States and the international community would recognize the clear signs of an Iraqi material breach. If members of the Administration cannot agree on the value of the inspections and the credibility of their results, how will they collectively decide to go to war? Absent a flagrant defiance of the United Nations inspections by Saddam, the inspections are likely to go on for several months to come.