A second Gulf War is being fought as U.S. and allied forces
launch air strikes and occupy Iraqi territory, but the road to war
is longer than the routes to Baghdad.
Over the past year, the world watched as the United States and
Iraq moved closer to conflict, but the roots of the present war are
deeper than the diplomatic battle over weapons inspections or even
the military response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001.
“I think the Bush administration came into power fully
intending to confront Iraq,” said political science professor
Matthew Baum.
While running for president in October 2000, during his second
debate with Al Gore, George Bush said, “If Saddam is
developing weapons of mass destruction … there are going to be
serious consequences if I’m president.”
Bush has repeatedly stated Saddam Hussein’s regime is a
serious threat to peace, and dislodging the Iraqi government is a
strategic objective of the current war. However, this goal is not
unique to the Bush administration. During the Clinton years,
Congress passed a resolution favoring regime change in Iraq.
What seems to be the key difference between Clinton and Bush is
not their attitudes on Hussein, but their willingness to use
force.
Clinton was “not willing to wage a full-scale war,”
said political science professor Kenneth Schultz.
Before war started, the administration focused heavily on Iraq,
even as evidence mounted that North Korea and Iran, two countries
the president included with Iraq in what he called an “Axis
of Evil,” were pursuing nuclear weapons.
Baum said he thinks the president is hoping Teheran and
Pyongyang will be less confrontational if the United States defeats
Iraq at war.
“The administration is banking on countries like North
Korea and Iran watching Iraq,” he said.
Baum added that such a strategy could backfire, since Iranian
and North Korean leaders might hasten weapons development to deter
the United States from strikes against their countries.
While trying to build global and popular support to use force
against Iraq, the administration frequently described the Iraqi
regime as a sponsor of terrorism. Though Iraq does pay rewards to
the families of suicide bombers, no extensive ties between Iraq and
al-Qaeda have been proven.
Though there is little evidence Hussein and Osama bin Laden are
connected, Schultz said public concern over the threat of al-Qaeda
and other terrorist groups has made it easier for the president to
convince Americans to support the war.
“The events of Sept. 11 created a political opening for
the Bush administration,” he said.
But other countries have been much harder to convince. While the
United States enjoyed the support of a broad coalition and the
United Nations during the 1991 Gulf War, many nations, most notably
France and Russia, refuse to support the United States in the
current conflict.
An obvious difference between the two wars was that Iraq’s
invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was an obvious act of aggression, while
in the past months the United States has had difficulty persuading
others that Iraq seriously violated United Nations disarmament
resolutions and that force was a justified response.
“Iraq, in invading Kuwait, had very clearly crossed the
line … you don’t have the same thing in this case,”
Schultz said.
Baum and Schultz see international opposition to war in Iraq as
part of a reaction to Bush’s unilateral policies, such as the
rejections of the Kyoto Protocol and International Military
Tribunal, and withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty.
“That way of approaching the world is going to … provoke
opposition,” Schultz said.
Unilateralism, which is designed to increase the United
States’ freedom of action, could compromise national
security, Baum said, since terrorists are not constrained by
national borders.
“We can’t deal effectively with al-Qaeda
unilaterally because there’s no country to invade …
it’s a police effort and requires cooperation,” he
said.
Many wonder what effects the war will have on the United
Nations, which Bush warned would become “irrelevant” if
it would not enforce Iraqi disarmament.
“I don’t know how much damage is done … but
you’ve got an administration that doesn’t believe in
the United Nations,” Baum said.
In 1999, President Clinton committed the United States to an air
war against Serbian forces in Kosovo without U.N. approval since
Russia refused to accept strong resolutions against Serbia.
Schultz said it is very difficult to achieve consensus in the
United Nations on resolutions that require nations to take a side
against other countries.
“The U.N. is hurt by this, but it has never been
spectacularly successful in this area,” he said.
The United Nations does better at humanitarian missions and
peacekeeping efforts where the parties in conflict want the
international body to monitor an agreement, Schultz said.
With reports from Daily Bruin wire services.