|
What to do about Iraq...... and
Congress
Members of Congress used their August recess to raise
questions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq that appears to be looming.
Their discussions, conducted via a series of quotes and counter-quotes
in the press rather than in the legislative chamber itself, indicate
a promising shift in Washington’s mood, following 10 months
of all-aboard solidarity in the administration’s ill-defined
and open-ended war on terror.
Even better, the rising lack of consensus runs blithely across party
lines. Two Texas Republicans who often coincide on Middle East issues
exemplify an important split in the ranks.
Dick Armey, the house majority leader who goes as far as endorsing
mass population transfer for the Palestinians, showed that he is,
on issues pertaining less directly to Israel, a traditional stay-at-home
Republican. In recent statements he suggested that foreign dictators
should be left alone as long as they mind their business within
their own borders.
In contrast, house majority whip Tom DeLay – author of the
early-May congressional resolution that made the Israeli Defense
Forces’ street battle in Jenin one and the same with the US-led
war against terrorism – is all for an attack on Iraq. DeLay
cites Saddam Hussein’s past record in the region and his non-cooperation
with UN weapons inspectors as all the justification that is needed.
Another aspect of the proto-debate on Iraq concerns unilateralism
versus multilateralism, as the sole global superpower contemplates
launching a military strike without support, symbolic or otherwise,
from Arab or European allies. A Republican with considerably more
nuanced views of Middle East policy, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska,
spoke on CNN about the risks of setting a precedent for preemptive
strikes. India, for example, might take a crack at Pakistan and
justify its actions on the grounds that the United States acts the
same way. Hagel also mentioned that Israel could strike some unspecified
enemy without prior provocation.
Since the 1950s, US administrations have repeatedly launched military
actions (Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia) without requesting
a congressional go-ahead. This time, the prospect of a debate in
Congress is reassuring. The likely parameters of such a debate have
already been laid out in a series of meetings of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
But the discussions there centered on how – not whether –
to hit Iraq. And since the expert testimonials presented came entirely
from non-governmental sources such as journalists and think-tank
analysts, the meetings failed to define clear aims.
But as ongoing campaigns in the Afghan mountains and elsewhere demonstrate,
battles begun by presidential decree can be hard to win – even
with overwhelming power. Only congressional debate can ensure that
a clear set of goals exists before the administration begins to
execute the military option.
Statements from administration officials earlier in the summer left
no doubt that an invasion of Iraq was not a matter of if, but when.
Now, with skeptical voices growing louder, George W. Bush says he’s
a “patient man.”
Maybe, then, he’ll have the patience to wait for a proper,
thorough congressional debate on Iraq. And maybe, just maybe, Congress
will have the wisdom to listen to US allies around the world and
consider the question not just of how, but if.
Neil MacDonald
Submit
your comment
Top
|
