IRAQ: Decision Time - Brief Article

National Review, Sept 2, 2002

Sen. Joseph Biden, Democrat from Delaware, says that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice promised him that there would be no "October Surprise." If Rice meant merely that the administration would not time an invasion of Iraq to influence the midterm elections, the promise is unobjectionable. If she meant that action against Iraq is being put off until after the elections so as not to influence them, the promise seems imprudent. Electoral considerations should not affect our military strategy either way.

The administration may fear that any strike on Iraq in September or October would be taken as politically motivated and that this perception would undermine bipartisan support for the war. No doubt the left-most elements of the Democratic party would accuse President Bush of using the military for base reasons. But the public would trust him to have done the right thing, and Democrats who made such charges would do so at their own political peril. If the administration moves against Iraq, it will have the congressional support it needs.

Should the administration get that support on record before taking any action? There are those who argue that it has no legal obligation to do so. The Gulf War never ended as a matter of law; there was a cease-fire agreement (which the Iraqi regime has violated) but no treaty. The law authorizing the Gulf War remains in effect. It was the basis for President Clinton's 1998 "Desert Fox" campaign of bombings, and it is the basis for the continuing American enforcement of the "no fly" zones over Iraq.

This is not merely a legal point. In considering whether to overthrow the Iraqi regime, it is important to remember that a campaign to do so would not be a move from peace to war. It would be a ratcheting up of our existing conflict. American fighter pilots fly daily over Iraq. Americans have already liberated much of northern Iraq. Recognition of this context makes nonsense of many of the arguments against regime change, such as the arguments based on the inviolability of Iraqi "sovereignty."

To move to change the Iraqi regime is, nonetheless, a fateful step that deserves to be debated by Congress. Whether or not President Bush has a legal obligation to get new congressional authorization for this campaign, he would be wise to do so. The worst possible situation for him, and for the country, would occur if we hit a bad patch in the war and congressional leaders, with no responsibility for having authorized the fighting, could carp from the sidelines. We are seeing an evasion of responsibility even now. Congressmen are speaking gravely of the need for debate over Iraq. But that debate has so far been empty, since congressmen are generally declining to take a position for or against new military action. No one, after all, is asking them to declare themselves.

It is sometimes argued that a congressional vote for war would take away the element of surprise from our military. But surely Saddam Hussein is already planning for an American attack. The graver question is whether the Iraqis would attack us as soon as Congress, by authorizing military action or preparing to authorize it, made it clear that regime change was coming. A resolution of support for military action can therefore only be brought up when we are ready to defend against or to pre-empt such an attack.

If it is possible for us to reach that level of preparedness soon, a congressional vote should be held during election season. What to do about Iraq is the most important question before the country. Candidates for high office should be forced to make their views known, and citizens should be able to evaluate them accordingly when they go to vote.

In deciding when to attack Iraq, the chief consideration for President Bush should not be the timing of the elections. What he should be, and no doubt is, thinking about is the truth of his own words from the "axis of evil" speech: Time is not on our side.