Bush Presidency, American Influence on the Line in IraqBy Paul West
THE BALTIMORE SUN -- WASHINGTON
As he took questions from reporters Thursday night, President Bush might be forgiven for asking one himself: How in the world did I get in this fix?
Bush spoke in the past tense when he said he wished Saddam Hussein had disarmed. A U.S. attack appears inevitable and could begin soon. “After next week,” Bush indicated, when “the last phase of diplomacy” is over.
Once bombs start flying, the lives of a quarter-million American men and women in uniform could be at risk. The fate of Bush’s presidency already is.
Also on the line: the global influence of the United States in this post-Cold War era. For Bush and the country, the stakes are enormous.
But at a time when everything was supposed to be coming together, militarily and diplomatically, for a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, things seem to be coming apart.
The war now would be launched in the face of strong opposition from nearly all of America’s most powerful allies, most of world opinion and a sharply divided U.S. public. Except for Britain and Australia, every other nation has shied away from contributing a sizable contingent of troops.
Tensions are rising in Asia, where a nuclear crisis in North Korea continues to brew. At home, uncertainties about Iraq and the rising price of oil are stifling investment and hurting an already shaky economy.
“I am spending a lot of time on our economy. This is a period of uncertainty. I understand that,” Bush told reporters earlier this week.
He didn’t need to add that his White House is haunted by the defeat of his father in 1992, widely blamed on the perception that the first President Bush lost touch with the economic problems of ordinary Americans.
But it is Iraq that has preoccupied the president, the nation, and the world in recent weeks, and which probably will set the direction for the second half of Bush’s term.
Having come this far in building up U.S. forces in the Near East, analysts say, the damage to America’s standing in the region, and around the world, could be even greater if Bush fails to move militarily against Saddam.
Backing away now “would erode our credibility for a significant period of time,” said Morton Abramowitz, a former State Department intelligence official who was U.S. ambassador to Turkey during the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
Time has worked against Bush’s efforts to rally other nations behind his drive for military action, the veteran diplomat noted. The failure of international weapons inspectors to turn up a “smoking gun” in Iraq over the past few months has strengthened the hand of those who say the United States has failed to prove that Saddam represents an immediate threat.
But the objections to Bush’s war plans from Russia, France and Germany go beyond the immediate question of what to do about Saddam.
Instead, they reflect the administration’s failure to amass political capital in Moscow, Paris and Berlin over the past two years -- and growing concern overseas that the United States under Bush has been arrogantly throwing its weight around.