Iraq or Bust

Until the past week or two, there wasn’t any question of Bush’s reneging on his vow to press ahead with the war on terrorism. Bush was firmly committed to pursuing the war all the way to Baghdad and beyond. But now there are credible reports the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon are wary of attacking Iraq anytime soon, if ever. And Bush, in the days before and during his trip to Europe that ended yesterday, has suddenly become coy on the subject, saying no military plans for an Iraq campaign are on his desk. While in Europe, he said he would consult with allies later, once he makes a decision. But wasn’t that part of the purpose of the trip in the first place?

In judging the potential impact of a flip-flop on Iraq, the first step is to recall Bush’s own words. Nine days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the president identified the enemy as “a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.” Iraq is obviously one of those governments. Bush also said the war on terrorism wouldn’t end until all terrorists have been “found, stopped and defeated.”

In his State of the Union address on January 29, the president was more specific, mentioning Iraq by name as part of the “axis of evil.” With the Taliban defeated, he said “our war on terror is only beginning . . . we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.” Again, he cited Iraq.

Those bold and unequivocal statements will make it difficult for Bush to explain a retreat on Iraq. Saddam is allowing inspectors to return? Nobody would believe inspectors would be allowed to check out every suspected Iraqi installation. Saddam is a changed man? That’s a laugh. The United States was just flat wrong in thinking Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction? Again, a non-starter.

The fact is Bush wouldn’t be able to come up with a believable explanation for backing off. The result: His credibility would be shattered. Everything he says about terrorism or threats to America would be suspect. One of his strengths is his insistence on speaking with moral clarity. That strength would be gone, too. Going soft on Iraq, on top of reaching easy compromises with liberal Democrats in Congress, would turn Bush’s own base among conservatives against him.

And Democrats, so desperate to find any issue on which to attack Bush, would finally have one–actually, more than one. He’s not a man of his word, they’d say. He’s not doing enough to protect Americans. He’s letting a threatening dictator off the hook. And so on. In their hearts, most Democrats would probably agree with a decision not to attack Iraq. But they’d never let on. And of course the press would sense blood in the water and respond shark-like. My guess is Bush’s approval rating would quickly sink by 20 percentage points and his re-election prospects for 2004 would dip dramatically.

Economically, things might not get worse, but they wouldn’t get better either. Businesses are leery of making large investments with the terrorist threat so palpable, which is why the economy is treading water now. They’re waiting to see what the president does about Saddam. Would doing nothing make the business community feel safer and thus eager to invest? Hardly. It’s the elimination of the threat of terrorism–particularly of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction provided by Saddam–that will make them feel safe. There’s a simple equation that applies: Saddam out, economy up.

After jettisoning plans to oust Saddam, Bush would quickly find out the difference between being liked and being respected around the world. Now, he’s respected, even feared. His strong response to September 11 is responsible for this. And the notion that he’s going after every terrorist and every country that supports terrorists keeps the respect level high. Sure, his tactics draw criticism and protests, but even anti-Bush demonstrators know the world is safer so long as Bush continues to go after terrorists.

Now, consider the world’s response if he lets Saddam survive and prosper. Would anyone, anywhere in the world, feel safer? Would Europeans who balk at tough measures like an invasion of Iraq feel more protected? Would American businesses awaiting a signal to open the capital investment spigot feel the time had come? The answer is no, no, and no. Bush would become a well-liked statesman, just as Neville Chamberlain was for months after Munich.

I think there’s a parallel with Ronald Reagan and the deployment of the Pershing missiles aimed at the Soviet Union in 1983. The months leading up to the deployment were marked by gigantic anti-Reagan demonstrations, with a million people or more hitting the streets in Germany. That’s West Germany, the pro-American Germany. But once Reagan had put the missiles in place, the protests faded and the anxiety of European governments eased as well. Reagan was respected in Europe, not loved, and the world was better off.

So Bush’s path ought to be clear to him, and in truth I suspect it is. My guess is Bush’s recent comments on Iraq are designed to make life easier for his European allies. And the Joint Chiefs are already promising, in public, to do whatever Bush decides. But until Bush orders the military into action against Iraq, there’s a chance he will opt against deposing Saddam. If he does, it will be the worst and most destructive decision of his presidency.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.