So much for the supposed Republican debate on Iraq

  • Charles Krauthammer / Washington Post columnist
  • Thursday, September 12, 2002 9:00pm
  • Opinion

WASHINGTON — So much for the great Republican split over Iraq. Just weeks ago, we were told that it included the old-guard heavyweights: Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Dick Armey and, heaviest of all, Colin Powell. Let’s review the lineup.

Scowcroft wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed warning against war on Iraq on the grounds that it would irrevocably damage the war on terrorism. Yet on Monday he told CNN’s Judy Woodruff, "The direction the president is taking, I think, is exactly the right direction, to reach out, to get our friends, to get our allies, to get the U.N. involved. That’s exactly what I was trying to get across."

Scowcroft explained: "I’m not saying don’t go after him (Saddam). I’m saying let’s put it all in perspective and remember that when we go after him, we need to have the support of the world community behind us because we need that support for the war on terrorism." In other words, his original objection was to naked unilateralism on Iraq because it would fracture the worldwide coalition that Bush had assembled for the war on terrorism. Now that it is clear the administration is going to make a full-court press for allied and some kind of U.N. support, Scowcroft is on board.

Kissinger’s opposition to war on Iraq was a fiction in the first place — a case of misidentification, to use the more polite term of New York Times columnist Bill Keller and former Managing Editor Seymour Topping. The Times, which had made that claim on its front page, admitted in a belated correction that it had "listed Mr. Kissinger incorrectly among Republicans who were warning outright against a war."

Nonetheless, the editors’ note insisted that they had gotten right the essence of Kissinger as a critic of Bush’s Iraq policy: "Most centrally, Mr. Kissinger said that removing Mr. Hussein from power — Mr. Bush’s justification for war — was not an appropriate goal."

This is comical. If this is the central distinction between Kissinger and Bush, why was there not a single mention of it in the two front page stories the Times ran trumpeting Kissinger’s alleged opposition to the Bush policy? You’d think the place for the central disagreement might be the front page articles on that very disagreement, rather than a paragraph tucked 2Z\x weeks later into an editors’ note in the corrections column.

Moreover, this post facto claim is simply false. Kissinger says that regime change in Iraq is an appropriate goal. The point he made in his syndicated column and which he continues to make is that in its "declaratory policy" — i.e., public posture — the United States should emphasize weapons destruction rather than regime change in order to garner allies for the war. But our actual policy is to achieve both. After all, the goals are inseparable. Given the nature of Saddam’s rule, destroying these weapons requires regime change.

So much for Kissinger. What then is left of the great Republican split? James Baker? Baker has said that "the only realistic way to effect regime change in Iraq is through the application of military force" but has argued for going first to the U.N. Now that we are, in fact, following the Baker recommendation, what is the basis for calling him an opponent?

That leaves Colin Powell, supposedly the epicenter of internal opposition to the hard line on Iraq. Well, this is Powell last Sunday on national television: "It’s been the policy of this government to insist that Iraq be disarmed. … And we believe the best way to do that is with a regime change." Moreover, he added, we are prepared "to act unilaterally to defend ourselves." When Powell, the most committed multilateralist in the administration, deliberately invokes the incendiary U-word to describe the American position, we have ourselves a consensus.

It turns out that the disagreement among Republicans was less about going to Iraq than about going to the U.N. It was a vastly overblown disagreement because even the most committed unilateralist would rather not go it alone if possible. Of course you want allies. You just don’t want to be held hostage to their veto. And as the first President Bush demonstrated when he declared that the United States would liberate Kuwait unilaterally if necessary, the best way to get allies is to let others know you are prepared to go it alone and let them ponder the cost of missing the train.

So what’s left of the Republican revolt? Dick Armey, the sage of Lewisville, Texas, has been telling people that, sure, Iraq may have nuclear weapons, but so does France, and if you ask him, he’s got more of a problem with France than with Iraq.

The world now waits to see whether the Democrats will join Armey at the barricades.

Charles Krauthammer can be reached at The Washington Post Writers Group, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071-9200.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Feb. 11

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

CNA Nina Prigodich, right, goes through restorative exercises with long term care patient Betty Long, 86, at Nightingale's View Ridge Care Center on Friday, Feb. 10, 2023 in Everett, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Boost state Medicaid funding for long-term care

With more in need of skilled nursing and assisted-living services, funding must keep up to retain staff.

Sentencing reforms more complicated than column described

I read Todd Welch’s Jan. 29 column. He is certainly entitled to… Continue reading

President Trump running nation like his failed businesses

We’ve seen it before; President Trump will do or say anything to… Continue reading

Intent of Trump’s nominees is to subvert good government

It is clear that Donald Trump has something specific in mind with… Continue reading

Comment: Musk’s USAID shutdown an attack on most vulnerable

Even promises of ‘waivers’ are falling short and allowing medical efforts to dry up, endangering millions.

Comment: Real dangers loom with Trump’s incoherent trade policy

Even if Trump could settle on a justification for his tariffs, the results could leave the country far. weaker.

bar graph, pie chart and diagrams isolated on white, 3d illustration
Editorial: Don’t let state’s budget numbers intimidate you

With budget discussions starting soon, a new website explains the basics of state’s budget crisis.

Curtains act as doors for a handful of classrooms at Glenwood Elementary on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 in Lake Stevens, Washington. (Olivia Vanni / The Herald)
Editorial: Schools’ building needs point to election reform

Construction funding requests in Arlington and Lake Stevens show need for a change to bond elections.

FILE- In this Nov. 14, 2017, file photo Jaìme Ceja operates a forklift while loading boxes of Red Delicious apples on to a trailer during his shift in an orchard in Tieton, Wash. Cherry and apple growers in Washington state are worried their exports to China will be hurt by a trade war that escalated on Monday when that country raised import duties on a $3 billion list of products. (Shawn Gust/Yakima Herald-Republic via AP, File)
Editorial: Trade war would harm state’s consumers, jobs

Trump’s threat of tariffs to win non-trade concessions complicates talks, says a state trade advocate.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Monday, Feb. 10

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Comment: Trump can go only as far as the courts will allow

Most of Trump’s executive orders are likely to face court challenges, setting the limits of presidential power.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.