Issue No. 601
Front page
Previous issue
Site map
|
|
29 August - 4 Sept. 2002 Issue No. 601 Front page |
Current issue Previous issue Site map | |
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Recommend this page | ||
Full steam ahead
America's war debate has grown in intensity, dominating the agenda to the exclusion of everything else, writes Mohamed El-Sayed Said from Washington
A more assertive argument for the case of war by senior administration officials, the entry into debate of figures carrying weight within the political establishment, a rapidly growing consensus on certain aspects of the various war scenarios -- these might seem minor developments but they have inflamed the debate on the US war against Iraq.
While questioning the legitimacy of the enterprise barely rises above a whisper, making the war less costly, smarter and more acceptable to Washington's allies has led to a clamorous series of psychological, diplomatic and political measures.
On 15 August Condoleeza Rice made a passionate, moralistic argument for war, focussing mostly on the evils of Saddam Hussein but also drawing in the dangers posed by Iraq's alleged development of weapons of mass destruction. This was followed up on Monday by Dick Cheney, in emphatic mood. "There is no doubt," he said, "that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction, and there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," citing testimonies made by Saddam's son-in-law in the mid-1990's. Cheney made it clear that the return of weapons inspectors provided no alternative to a "pre-emptive war".
The endless repetition of such arguments by administration officials and extreme right wing propagandists and politicians serves to sweep beneath the carpet concerns over the real costs of the war. References by liberals to the formidable consensus against war among Washington's allies and friends, the impact of the venture on an already vulnerable American and world economy and the absence of any exit strategy, though, are now being made with ever greater urgency, voiced by major figures within both the Republican and Democratic parties.
In this connection is the arguments made by Brent Scowcroft in The Wall Street Journal last week are of particular interest. Though Scowcroft argued against the appropriateness of the war option he stopped short of condemning it out of hand. His arguments were later reiterated by James Baker, who argued that the administration should pursue the possibility of a robust inspection regime before going to war.
Baker focused on the economic cost of war -- estimated at $60 billion -- and dangers involved in any unilateral action, the implication being that multilateral approaches must be explored in an attempt to reduce the economic and political costs.
While Henry Kissinger, predictably, threw his weight behind the administration, the 18 August edition of The Washington Post published a comprehensive critique of the administration's position by Zbigbiew Brezezinski, national security advisor to President Carter. He castigated the administration for failing to consult with its allies, for political Darwinism and the lack of any real evidence to support its anti-Iraq rhetoric.
Scowcroft and Baker's criticisms of current US policy attracted great interest in the US, with Scowcroft's remarks, particularly, having a snowball effect.
Yet however much the debate rages it has yet to question the legitimacy of the war option. Instead, Scowcroft, Baker, Brezezinski and others have marked the parametres of an emerging consensus on the shortcomings of current policy which include: the need to address the public opinion more persuasively; the importance of wider participation in the national debate and in decision making and the need to procure the explicit approval of Congress for any declaration of war.
Emphasis, too, has been placed on the importance of consulting America's allies in the Arab world, Europe and elsewhere, as well as on the need to pursue, through the Security Council, the possibility of Iraq accepting the unconditional admission of UN inspectors. Some commentators, Baker, Sandy Burger, and Brezezinski included, have also demanded a more balanced approach to the Palestinian- Israeli conflict.
Yet the administration continues in defiant mood, as indicated by the latest speech to war veterans by Vice President Cheney. Senior officials have also been keen to stress that the president does not need congressional authorisation for the war, with the more extreme polemicists being virulent in their denunciations of the arguments presented by Baker and Scowcroft. There are signs, though -- hearings held by the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee being among the most significant -- that the establishment is increasingly determined not to allow a small clique of extreme right wing figures to push the country to war without further consideration.
It is a mood that is growing and President Bush could be making a major mistake if he decides to launch a war without at least taking some of these consensual points into consideration. In the meantime, though, it appears that actual plans for the war are proceeding full steam ahead and the practical steps already taken -- the Iraqi opposition conference sponsored by the administration, the withdrawal of American oil companies from the Iraqi oil market, the expansion of Al-Adeed air base in Qatar -- could indicate that a decision has already been made.
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
