Rich Lowry on Bush, Iraq & WMD on National Review Online
Author Archive
E-mail Author
Send to a Friend
<% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

September 8, 2003, 12:30 p.m.
Away from WMD
New arguments for the Iraq war.

ush’s speech last night heralded a shift away from WMD in making the case for the war on Iraq to the three P’s: politics, prestige, and preemption.

POLITICS: Bush argued that terrorism emanates from the politics of the Middle East, which ranges from the poles of secular fascism to radical theocracy without a lot in between. Nearly all the regimes in the region are complicit in terrorism one way or another. So stamping out Islamic terrorism isn’t possible without at least changing the behavior of these regimes. Iraq is the strategic linchpin in the region and creating a decent pluralistic, pro-Western government there will create a new model for Middle East politics and pressure the surrounding governments. This was always the most compelling geo-strategic reason for the Iraq war, but it was usually overshadowed by others (WMD, U.N. compliance) and has been derided as “the domino theory.” Of course, other Arab governments aren’t just going to collapse if we succeed in Iraq. But if you want just a hint of how U.S. success there could have a subversive effect, consider the way other dictatorial Arab governments — dishonestly, but tellingly — have had to pay lip service to democracy in Iraq. Such words, even if insincere, have consequences (check out Amir Taheri in the New York Post today on this topic).

PRESTIGE: Bush rightly argued that terrorists were emboldened in the 1990s by the belief that the U.S. could be made to cut and run upon experiencing any casualties. Bush mentioned Somalia and Beirut in this connection. We wish it would have turned out otherwise in Iraq, but the low-intensity insurrection now provides a test of U.S. staying power. If the U.S. can see this through, it may have vanquished its image as a paper tiger once and for all. That, over the long run, may serve to convince terrorists that killing Americans is not as useful as they thought, that it doesn’t bring an inevitable American retreat.

PREEMPTION: Bush defended a forward-leaning posture last night, relating Iraq to Afghanistan as both designed to take the fight into the enemy’s backyard. Iraq for the terrorists represents a fundamentally defensive action: They are fighting to keep a key Middle Eastern state from becoming pro-Western, essentially to preserve ground. That they are forced into this posture is surely better than the alternative. Iraq has also, unexpectedly, created an opportunity to kill terrorists in one place not seen since Afghanistan. It is a kind of reverse Tora Bora. The beauty of the battle of Tora Bora is that it presented an opportunity to engage a large group of terrorists in a conventional battle. The opportunity was wasted when they were allowed to run away from our forces (mainly B-52s) over the border into Pakistan. Now terrorists are running toward our forces in Iraq. They can, of course, cause disastrous mayhem, and it is a tragedy whenever an American soldier dies. But Iraq makes it possible for our best-armed, best-trained men to confront exactly the sort of terrorists who might otherwise be trying to make it into the U.S.

Bush’s speech last night — a clear, forceful statement of these arguments — was long overdue. In coming months, he will have to make his case again and again.

— Rich Lowry is author of the upcoming Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.

 

     

 

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry090803b.asp