DISARMING SIMPLICITY:
Regarding the Question of Iraq and George Bush, the Situation is More Complicated Than Cheers or Boos Without Nuance

Just as choosing to go to war is a profound and risky decision, so too is choosing to avoid war sometimes risky, and occasionally even more costly in terms of human life.

Just who is George W. Bush? Is he “Top Gun,” as Newsweek has crowned him or The Right Man as David Frum argues, a master strategist besting Democrats and Iraqis with ease? Is he the “deliberate, patient,” visionary Bob Woodward depicts in Bush at War, a leader so clever, so engaged, that the “most awful moments” for Condoleeza Rice, the brainy National Security Adviser come “when the president th[inks] of something that the principals, particularly she, should have anticipated”? Or is Bush a “moron,” as Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s dearly departed aide suggested?

That we seem reduced to such simplistic choices reflects the poverty of contemporary political discourse. Life is more complicated than a thumbs-up or thumbs-down analysis, even in our headline-driven age. It is possible to disagree with President Bush’s Iraq policy without mocking him – or demonizing Americans. Similarly, it is possible to support a war in Iraq without blindly glorifying the President.

If Bush leads the United States and his coalition of conscience into war, it will be a “trust me” war, a war whose perceived legitimacy rests on the faith Americans and the Allies have in the President. Ultimately, most leadership is alchemy, a leap into the unknown trusting one human above all others. And wars are calculated risks, with the only assured casualty being the status quo. But absent a foolish move by Saddam Hussein, the green light for a war ultimately will be based on the President’s judgment. Moreover, a decision to fight this post-Gulf War war will be susceptible to future recriminations, for once the war is declared no one will be able to prove what would have happened had there not been a war.

Stunning Superficiality

The stunning superficiality of the war debate, a debate filled with excesses wherein too many “peaceniks” treat “Bushitler” as the villain and Saddam as the victim, should give one pause. It is absurd to equate the leader of a democracy striving to reassure his citizens and the West after the vicious surprise attacks of September 11 with a dictator who has raped, tortured, and oppressed his own citizens while menacing his neighbors. Too many anti-war protests have degenerated into a nihilistic pacifism, one-sided readings of the current situation which ignore the very real threats from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, from Islamicist terrorists, from political cultures that deploy violence as a tool in the Middle East but hide behind the supposed pro-peace camp in the West. Isn’t it odd that despite protestors’ professed love for peace there is no room on most signs to denounce Saddam’s tortures, Palestinian suicide bombings or even Al-Qaeda?

It is one thing to say that the risks in going to war outweigh the potential benefits; it is another thing to claim that there are no benefits to ending Saddam’s oppression of Iraqis. It is one thing to debate America’s decision to target Saddam; it is another thing to caricature American motives by ignoring the real pain of September 11, or, in a case of Freudianism run amok, speculating about Bush Junior’s need to finish the job his Poppa began. Similarly, it lacks credibility to denounce American oil greed without noticing French, German, and Russian desires to continuing profiteering from their cozy arrangements with Saddam’s Iraq.

Historians know that where you begin a tale often reflects where you intend to conclude. Bush begins most speeches about Iraq by talking about September 11 because without that new unhappy awareness of American vulnerability, this President would have a much higher tolerance for Saddam’s treaty violations and arms build-up. In the wake of the massacres, Americas’ leaders asked who has the means and the motivation to kill thousands more. To no one’s surprise Saddam Hussein emerged at the top of the list.

The American people’s reliance on their leader’s whim, er, his rational, balanced calculation, only polarizes the debate further. Too many Americans have also pushed the debate away from the murky gray zone wherein we balance future risks and dividends into the simple world of good Americans, evil Saddamites and sniveling Europeans. The New York Post front page portraying the French and German as weasels is inappropriate to the challenges of our times.

President Bush deserves high marks for three accomplishments. After September 11, Bush reassured the nation, disrupted al Qaida, and crushed the Taliban. The last two objectives were achieved despite much media naysaying. Just before the Taliban fled, talk of quagmires abounded. Warnings about an enraged Arab street, about more terrorism resulting from vigorously prosecuting of the Afghani war, filled the airwaves. More recently, Bush has succeeded in refocusing attention on Saddam Hussein’s violations of international law, the Gulf War cease fire, and basic standards of decency. Can anyone honestly claim that without the vigorous American efforts, that without the real threat of an Allied attack, the United Nations Security Council would be inspecting Iraq again to judge compliance with over a dozen of its resolutions? Only because of America’s mobilization have twelve years of dithering turned into months of tense but important probes of Saddam’s evil empire.

Unfortunately, there have been other “limited successes,” as Jimmy Carter called one of his failures. Afghanistan is neither democratic nor fully functional. Bin Laden and too many of his henchmen remain unaccounted for – although there have been some impressive gains lately. “Homeland Security” is now the Orwellian name of Washington’s newest bureaucracy, with the actual goal still elusive and duct tape no guarantee of safety. Bush has been soft on the Saudis, the Syrians, the Iranians, and the many American Muslims who continue to support, finance, and sometimes even harbor, terrorists. Moreover, while Bush has done an adequate job of keeping Americans on board with his international vision, he has failed dramatically in the equally important task of rallying the world around his vision.

War and Peace

Judging by Bush’s track record so far, and that of the American military, the war will probably be relatively easy to win, the peace relatively easy to lose. For every optimistic scenario Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld can generate of a democratic Iraq inspiring others to reform, skeptics can imagine half a dozen disasters, ranging from street demonstrations destabilizing Bush’s “moderate” Arab friends, to an unholy Shiite alliance uniting Iran and Iraq.

Success in war and peace will require the talents of a “Top Gun.” Rather than carping about Bush’s IQ, his alleged oil-obsession, or, his deep-seated motives, critics need to prod the Administration to clarify the war aims and post-war plans. Similarly, rather than lionizing Bush as Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, supporters need to help the President fine-tune this war on terror, keeping the focus on eradicating Islamicist terrorists and their allies rather than on targeting “evil.”

Just as choosing to go to war is a profound and risky decision, so too is choosing to avoid war sometimes risky, and occasionally even more costly in terms of human life. Both sides of this debate need to acknowledge the risks inherent in the strategy they champion. We need to turn down the volume and give this issue the thoughtful, measured discussion it deserves, remembering that George W. Bush is not the issue, Saddam Hussein is.