Posted on 6-3-2003

A War Policy In Collapse
By James Carroll, Boston Globe, Tuesday 4 March 2003

WHAT A DIFFERENCE a month makes. On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell
made the Bush administration's case against Iraq with a show of authority
that moved many officials and pundits out of ambivalence and into
acceptance. The war came to seem inevitable, which then prompted millions
of people to express their opposition in streets around the globe. Over
subsequent weeks, the debate between hawks and doves took on the strident
character of ideologues beating each other with fixed positions. The
sputtering rage of war opponents and the grandiose abstractions of war
advocates both seemed disconnected from the relentless marshaling of
troops. War was coming. Further argument was fruitless. The time seemed to
have arrived, finally, for a columnist to change the subject.

And then the events of last week. Within a period of a few days, the war
policy of the Bush administration suddenly showed signs of incipient
collapse. No one of these developments by itself marks the ultimate
reversal of fortune for Bush, but taken together, they indicate that the
law of ''unintended consequences,'' which famously unravels the best-laid
plans of warriors, may apply this time before the war formally begins.
Unraveling is underway. Consider what happened as February rolled into March:

Tony Blair forcefully criticized George W. Bush for his obstinacy on global
environmental issues, a truly odd piece of timing for such criticism from a
key ally yet a clear effort to get some distance from Washington. Why now?

The president's father chose to give a speech affirming the importance both
of multinational cooperation and of realism in dealing with the likes of
Saddam Hussein. To say, as the elder Bush did, that getting rid of Hussein
in 1991 was not the most important thing is to raise the question of why it
has become the absolute now.

For the first time since the crisis began, Iraq actually began to disarm,
destroying Al Samoud 2 missiles and apparently preparing to bring weapons
inspectors into the secret world of anthrax and nerve agents. The Bush
administration could have claimed this as a victory on which to mount
further pressure toward disarmament.

Instead, the confirmed destruction of Iraqi arms prompted Washington to
couple its call for disarmament with the old, diplomatically discredited
demand for regime change. Even an Iraq purged of weapons of mass
destruction would not be enough to avoid war. Predictably, Iraq then asked,
in effect, why Hussein should take steps to disarm if his government is
doomed in any case? Bush's inconsistency on this point -- disarmament or
regime change? -- undermined the early case for war. That it reappears now,
obliterating Powell's argument of a month ago, is fatal to the moral
integrity of the prowar position.

The Russian foreign minister declared his nation's readiness to use its
veto in the Security Council to thwart American hopes for a UN ratification
of an invasion.

Despite Washington's offer of many billions in aid, the Turkish Parliament
refused to approve US requests to mount offensive operations from bases in
Turkey -- the single largest blow against US war plans yet. This failure of
Bush diplomacy, eliminating a second front, might be paid for in American
lives.

The capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior Al Qaeda
operative, should have been only good news to the Bush administration, but
it highlighted the difference between the pursuit of Sept. 11 culprits and
the unrelated war against Iraq. Osama bin Laden, yes. Saddam Hussein, no.

Administration officials, contradicting military projections and then
refusing in testimony before Congress to estimate costs and postwar troop
levels, put on display either the administration's inadequate preparation
or its determination, through secrecy, to thwart democratic procedures --
choose one.

In other developments, all highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness, the
Philippines rejected the help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea
apparently prepared to start up plutonium production, and Rumsfeld ordered
the actual deployment of missile defense units in California and Alaska,
making the absurd (and as of now illegal) claim that further tests are
unnecessary.

All of this points to an administration whose policies are confused and
whose implementations are incompetent. The efficiency with which the US
military is moving into position for attack is impressive; thousands of
uniformed Americans are preparing to carry out the orders of their civilian
superiors with diligence and courage. But the hollowness of that civilian
leadership, laid bare in the disarray of last week's news, is breathtaking.

That the United States of America should be on the brink of such an
ill-conceived, unnecessary war is itself a crime. The hope now is that --
even before the war has officially begun -- its true character is already
manifesting itself, which could be enough, at last, to stop it