Fw: A WAR POLICY IN COLLAPSE

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg@tin.it>]

 By James Carroll

 WHAT A DIFFERENCE a month makes. On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell
 made the Bush administration's case against Iraq with a show of authority
 that moved many officials and pundits out of ambivalence and into
 acceptance. The war came to seem inevitable, which then prompted millions
of
 people to express their opposition in streets around the globe. Over
 subsequent weeks, the debate between hawks and doves took on the strident
 character of ideologues beating each other with fixed positions. The
 sputtering rage of war opponents and the grandiose abstractions of war
 advocates both seemed disconnected from the relentless marshaling of
troops.
 War was coming. Further argument was fruitless. The time seemed to have
 arrived, finally, for a columnist to change the subject.

 And then the events of last week. Within a period of a few days, the war
 policy of the Bush administration suddenly showed signs of incipient
collapse. No one of these developments by itself marks the ultimate reversal
 of fortune for Bush, but taken together, they indicate that the law of
 ''unintended consequences,'' which famously unravels the best-laid plans of
 warriors, may apply this time before the war formally begins. Unraveling is
 underway. Consider what happened as February rolled into March:

 * Tony Blair forcefully criticized George W. Bush for his obstinacy on
 global environmental issues, a truly odd piece of timing for such criticism
 from a key ally yet a clear effort to get some distance from Washington.
Why
 now?

 * The president's father chose to give a speech affirming the importance
 both of multinational cooperation and of realism in dealing with the likes
 of Saddam Hussein. To say, as the elder Bush did, that getting rid of
 Hussein in 1991 was not the most important thing is to raise the question
of
 why it has become the absolute now.

 * For the first time since the crisis began, Iraq actually began to disarm,
 destroying Al Samoud 2 missiles and apparently preparing to bring weapons
 inspectors into the secret world of anthrax and nerve agents. The Bush
 administration could have claimed this as a victory on which to mount
 further pressure toward disarmament.

 * Instead, the confirmed destruction of Iraqi arms prompted Washington to
 couple its call for disarmament with the old, diplomatically discredited
demand for regime change. Even an Iraq purged of weapons of mass destruction
 would not be enough to avoid war. Predictably, Iraq then asked, in effect,
 why Hussein should take steps to disarm if his government is doomed in any
 case? Bush's inconsistency on this point -- disarmament or regime
change? --
 undermined the early case for war. That it reappears now, obliterating
 Powell's argument of a month ago, is fatal to the moral integrity of the
 prowar position.

 * The Russian foreign minister declared his nation's readiness to use its
 veto in the Security Council to thwart American hopes for a UN ratification
 of an invasion.

 * Despite Washington's offer of many billions in aid, the Turkish
Parliament
 refused to approve US requests to mount offensive operations from bases in
 Turkey -- the single largest blow against US war plans yet. This failure of
 Bush diplomacy, eliminating a second front, might be paid for in American
 lives.

 * The capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior Al Qaeda
 operative, should have been only good news to the Bush administration, but
 it highlighted the difference between the pursuit of Sept. 11 culprits and
 the unrelated war against Iraq. Osama bin Laden, yes. Saddam Hussein, no.

 * Administration officials, contradicting military projections and then
 refusing in testimony before Congress to estimate costs and postwar troop
 levels, put on display either the administration's inadequate preparation
or
 its determination, through secrecy, to thwart democratic procedures --
choose one.

 * In other developments, all highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness,
 the Philippines rejected the help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea
 apparently prepared to start up plutonium production, and Rumsfeld ordered
 the actual deployment of missile defense units in California and Alaska,
 making the absurd (and as of now illegal) claim that further tests are
 unnecessary.

 All of this points to an administration whose policies are confused and
 whose implementations are incompetent. The efficiency with which the US
 military is moving into position for attack is impressive; thousands of
 uniformed Americans are preparing to carry out the orders of their civilian
 superiors with diligence and courage. But the hollowness of that civilian
 leadership, laid bare in the disarray of last week's news, is breathtaking.

 That the United States of America should be on the brink of such an
 ill-conceived, unnecessary war is itself a crime. The hope now is that --
 even before the war has officially begun -- its true character is already
 manifesting itself, which could be enough, at last, to stop it.

 3/4/2003 - James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
 http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/063/oped/A_war_policy_in_collapseP.shtml