Column: Windbags of War
A few days ago Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued two statements regarding the "Iraq Question." One was deadly accurate and draped in honesty. The other was laughable--though equally lethal--in its dishonest inaccuracy.
In response to ever-mounting criticism leveled at White House policy, which has come, principally, from septuagenarian Republican sages and not leftie peaceniks or the slumbering Democratic Party, Rumsfeld began by saying that Scowcroftian-style wisdom would carry as much weight for Oval Office insiders as would a plea from Hillary Clinton. How quaint that these geezers still take an interest in foreign policy, but the White House, said Rumsfeld in so many words, couldn't care less. It will do as it pleases. A bit brutal perhaps; nevertheless defiantly truthful. One must give Rumsfeld credit for that much.
The Pentagon Hawk in Chief then followed with a statement that would make a timeshare flimflam artist blush. "Leaders have to make decisions that may be close calls. That's what they do." On any honesty scale, that public representation ranked right along with Saddam Hussein's repeated assurances that Iraq hasn't even dreamed of developing unseemly weapons. Given the growing heaps of respected, countervailing analyses, for Rumsfeld to characterize his boss's preordained decision to invade Iraq now as a "close call" was over the top, even for an administration that has reinvented official dishonesty as S.O.P.
The existing and you-can-bet-your-butt-sure-to-come problems with the White House's judgment on Iraq are staggering in breadth and depth--far from a close-call, coin-toss kind of thing. First, of course, is that raised by historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. last week on this website: "What is the clear and present danger, the direct and immediate threat, to justify sending the Army into Iraq?" The White House has offered no such justification--not even a barely believable one.
Second, a problem seemingly lost in the midst of all the manufactured war hysteria is that the President of the United States has no constitutional authority to launch a war effort of his singular making, especially one likely to last for years. Veep Cheney has graciously conceded the administration will consult Congress, while giving no indication that it intends to countenance congressional disapproval. Gutless congressional Democrats occasionally and politely raise a hand as if in civics class to point out this pestiferous kettle of fish, but all in all they're more worried about protecting their cushy leathered seats. Dems have left constitutional niceties to academic idealists to impotently hash out at impotent conferences.
Third, the White House has taken note of a precipitous decline in public approval for its ballyhooed war plans; such approval falling from 70 to 51 percent within the last few months. In view of this rapidly shrinking national support, Secretary Rumsfeld has once again taken the discipline of logic to creative new heights. He now contends that history presents many examples of public support for wars (he didn't bore anyone with specific cases) that quickly devolved into disasters. Thus, the proffered historical implication and rationale are that less public enthusiasm today likely translates into a greater probability of overseas military success. When it comes to plying twisted Socratic methods of thoughtful analysis, Huey Long and Lyndon Larouche were pikers compared to paradigm-shifter Don.
Fourth--and there hails no serious dispute on this--virtually the entire outside world believes that on the Iraqi Question, the Bush administration is just nuts. It's playing the role of unilateralist gunslinger who seems utterly uninterested in world-market volatility and inevitably devastating energy prices for both ourselves and struggling developing nations. Within the first two months of Bush I's Persian Gulf war, for example, oil prices soared 170 percent worldwide and stayed at burdensome levels for another year. As one international-markets analyst appraised the current situation, "When weapons start going off in the Middle East, markets generally go down ... and oil prices shoot to the moon." We can now "reasonably anticipate" a repeat performance. (Naturally, here at home with our euphoric economy, what better time to crack the markets over the head and send energy prices to said moon?)
Add to all this our allies' frustration over the world's sole superpower strutting about and steeping itself in profound disregard for its friends' concerns. Without naming names, France has denounced you-know-who's "attempts to legitimize the unilateral and preemptive use of force" which "runs contrary to the vision of collective security." Britain's Foreign Secretary has made clear that any and all possible peaceful resolutions are preferable to militaristic impatience, and Germany--which has had some experience in the downsides of militarism--persists in reminding the U.S. that allied consultation and United Nations collective efforts are worth reconsidering before we blunder in with guns blazing.
Fifth, the United States simply cannot afford the tab. I realize this curt observation is perhaps prissy and pedantic in these days of fiscal innovation, but we are, let us remember, broke and getting broker by the nanosecond. The most recent war-cost estimate came in at about $80 billion, and because no other nations are interested in sharing the expense as they did in 1990-1991, the whole demented venture is on us this time.
Last, there is the matter of thousands of lost American lives and Iraqi civilian "collateral damage." To be fair, our tough national leaders have personally experienced the hells of war: W's National Guard service, Cheney's college deferment, Ashcroft's deferment, and Rumsfeld's peacetime naval aviation stint. Therefore they're sympathetic, but also understand as true men that today's youth must buck up and face danger, just as they did.
Yes, it's a real close call.