US/ANALYSIS: The administration appears willing to sacrifice almost anything to oust the Iraqi leader, writes David Ignatius
There’s a scene in Moby Dick where Capt Ahab, in his pursuit of the white whale, angrily destroys the quadrant he uses for navigation. It’s the moment when the hunt becomes irrational, leaving the ship with nothing to steer by other than the dictates of the chase itself.
The Bush administration hasn't reached the Ahab moment yet, but it's getting close. Over the past few weeks the hunt for Saddam Hussein has become so intense that it has seemed almost self-destructive. The administration appears willing to sacrifice almost anything – America's alliances, its prosperity, even the security of its citizens – in its determination to oust the Iraqi leader from power.
You can't wage war without having something of Capt Ahab's relentless passion. But a nation heading into war also needs prudence and good judgment. America's best generals, people like Grant and Marshall and Eisenhower, were at once cautious and decisive men. Their greatness lay in the fact that they never lost sight of the long-term interests of the United States.
I do not question the need for Saddam's overthrow. It's a morally just cause. But this is what Israelis call "a war of choice".
For all of Bush's talk about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi dictator does not pose an immediate threat to the American people. Indeed, the dangers are more likely to come later. Liberating the Iraqi people is a good deed, but the war should be justified by a coherent, long-term strategy.
Here the Bush administration has gone wobbly – not in its resolve to make war, but in its lack of a clear strategy. Waging war seems to have become a goal in itself, an end rather than a
means.
One obvious danger sign is the bitter row that has broken out between the US and its European allies, which threatens the future of the NATO alliance. Washington's pique over the defiance of France and Germany is understandable – they're getting in the way.
But however cynical and calculating Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder may be, they are also reflecting the political sentiment of their countries. The administration's indignation toward "old Europe" masks the fact that it hasn't done a very good job of selling its policy. Europe's reaction should not come as a surprise. To European eyes, America has been behaving like a rising imperial power.
Through its modern history, Europe has sought to contain expansionist powers. Did theneo-imperialists in Washington imagine that Europeans would cheer America's new dominance?
In addition to alienating old friends, the Bush administration has been alienating new ones, too.
The most important defector is President Vladimir Putin. If Russia and China join France in
the anti-war camp, then three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council will stand against Washington.
America can go to war anyway, but in doing so it will weaken the United Nations. That would harm US security interests, in my view.
Another danger sign is the administration's invitation to Turkey a week ago to invade northern Iraq. That will allow Turkish troops to suppress Kurdish nationalists and perhaps exert future hegemony over Kurdistan. This concession to Turkey was apparently the price of gaining its support for the war, but it undercuts part of the rationale for the war.
A third danger sign is that Bush is putting the US economy at risk.
I am not talking here about the effects on investor confidence ofconstant war talk. No, what's truly reckless is that the administration has not made any serious provision in its budget for the costs of the Iraq war. A big lesson of Vietnam was that, if you're going to fight a war, you must raise taxes to pay for it; otherwise, you risk damaging the economyseverely. Instead, Bush is proposing tax cuts.
Waging war in Iraq should not require the destruction of American alliances and economic interests. Indeed, if America tries to reorder Iraq without support from a broad coalition, it will make itself a ripe target for terrorists, perhaps for years to come. In these final days before conflict begins, the administration should stop hectoring its allies and make a final try to build a real coalition.
Because that effort may well fail, the administration also needs a strategy for picking up the pieces of NATO and the United Nations after the war is over.
Bush can harpoon this whale, but he should do so in a way thatdoes not weaken US security. He needs to take firm hold of his quadrant and steer a steadier course.
Win the war, captain, but save the ship, too.