Dan RatherNO QUESTION about it, the capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was a big, significant victory for the United States.
It also came at a key time for President Bush and his administration as they prepare to wage a war that some are saying is a distraction from, and detrimental to, the larger war on terrorism. Nevertheless, the accumulation of a batch of smaller headlines meant that this week was not, on balance, a good one for the President's plan to disarm Iraq by force and topple Saddam Hussein.
It started with defeat in the Turkish parliament, as a measure that would have allowed the United States to use bases in Turkey as a staging point for a northern invasion of Iraq failed to muster enough "yes" votes for passage.
It continued with the news that Iraq had begun to destroy some of its banned Al Samoud II missiles and the subsequent comment by chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix that this represented "real disarmament." And it built to a midweek crescendo with an announcement from France, Germany and Russia that they would "not allow" passage of a United Nations resolution authorising the use of force in Iraq. Left unsaid for the moment is whether permanent Security Council members Russia and France would use their veto power to this end.
Both the vote in Turkey and the upcoming U.N. vote have symbolic importance; they are barometers of the degree to which the United States has succeeded or failed to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world. But each also has a very large practical dimension.
The decision in Turkey, even if later reversed, means delays in the off-loading of troops and equipment, delays that might ultimately make for a longer and bloodier war. The vote in the United Nations, meantime, could play a large role in determining the extent of American public support for war.
A recent CBS News opinion poll indicated that, while 66 per cent of the American public supports military action against Iraq, only 31 per cent favours going to war without U.N. backing.
WILLING TO GO IT ALONE
President Bush has stated from the outset that he is willing to go it alone in Iraq or, with "a coalition of the willing" if necessary. By this time next week, that prospect might be a good deal closer to becoming reality.
What would going it alone mean? For President Bush, it would mean that the Iraqi gamble would become all his with a full share of the credit for what goes right and of the blame for what goes wrong. For the United States, it means that the task of post-war nation-building in Iraq will likely be a lonely one, in terms of manpower and of footing a bill that figures to be huge. It could also spell complications for U.S. efforts to deal with the burgeoning nuclear crisis in North Korea, not to mention unforeseen problems down the road.
President Bush is obviously aware of all this and has given every indication that he believes going to war without the United Nations, if it comes to that, is worth the risks.
Which brings us to one more thing that some historically-minded people are saying going it alone would mean: For posterity and precedent, it would mean that the President might do well to sharpen, hone and choose among the several reasons disarming a rogue state, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, liberating an oppressed people, sowing the seeds of democracy he has given for why this pre-emptive war is necessary, just and important for the United States to enter into at this time.
Dan Rather is a television news anchor. Copyright 2003 DJR Inc. Distributed by King Features Syndicate.
