STAFF EDITORIAL: A World Against War

President Bush has submitted a resolution to Congress asking for the power to use the United States military to invade Iraq. Such an attack would be wrong and should not occur. In attacking Iraq without provocation, the United States would not only reverse its traditional policy against striking first, but it would also ostracize itself in the international community as a meddling aggressor nation. Particularly in a time of such global instability, the United States must retain allies and not act rashly. In the first of a series of editorials, Spectator examines the war from an international standpoint.

Saddam Hussein is an acknowledged tyrant who has invaded other countries, used biological weapons against the Kurds, and has a clandestine program for the development of other dangerous weapons, possibly including an atomic bomb, but there is no evidence to suggest that he is planning an imminent attack against the United States or American interests elsewhere in the world. He is a threat, to be sure, but not one that requires an immediate, dangerous, politically and diplomatically questionable military invasion. War should not be taken lightly, especially when nuclear weapons may be involved, but President Bush's eager resolve to attack Iraq suggests that he and his advisers have not carefully thought through the ramifications of their proposals.

The Bush administration's recent rhetoric promoting an immediate unilateral American strike on Iraq is a complete reversal of the longstanding policy against first strikes. Such a dramatic change in United States foreign policy demands careful attention, and the rashness with which the administration is pushing for the use of military force is anything but cautious. To strike preemptively in Iraq would set a dangerous precedent that would be hard to defend, and the President has not shown compelling evidence to back this proposed shift in American policy.

An American invasion of Iraq would be just that--an American invasion. The lack of international military and diplomatic support should make war an unappealing prospect. America's allies, including the United Nations and many Europeans countries, are opposed to an attack on Iraq. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, is the notable, vocal exception, while German Chancellor Gerhard Schr^der won reelection last week in part because he denounced an American invasion of Iraq. War with Iraq would also jeopardize America's fragile alliances in the Middle East. Although the United Nations is negotiating to send weapons inspectors into Iraq, it will not support a war. The United States would not be able to rely on the assistance of its allies as it did in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf War. In addition, America would lose international support in other endeavors. The Bush administration should reexamine the costs of such an unpopular action.

President Bush's call for war hinges on two claims: that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and that he has ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Intelligence reports show that Hussein has dangerous weapons, but since he has not allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, no one is sure of the number or type of weapons in the country. In 1991, the world saw that Saddam Hussein was not reluctant to launch scud missiles against Israel. In the 11 years since the Gulf War, it is likely that his cache of weapons has grown larger, which is exactly why the United States should not attack Iraq. An attack would only provoke Hussein to use his weapons against American soldiers and America's allies.

Saddam Hussein's alleged links with the Sept. 11 terrorists have not been proven. It is unlikely that Hussein, a secular dictator, shares the fundamentalist values of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Bin Laden has called Hussein an "infidel," and reports that the masterminds of the terrorist attacks met with Hussein are unconfirmed. To go to war on such shaky grounds is unwise and shows a careless desire to rouse American patriotism by linking all the world's evils to Sept. 11. The government should not use such a cheap excuse to go to war, and the American public should not accept this reasoning either.

Disturbingly, the Bush administration has not offered any plans for a post-Hussein Iraq. When the bombing ends, the United States will have to rebuild a war-torn Iraq, and that will be a challenge. Iraq is a large country with a diverse population, and finding a leader who could cohesively and peacefully unite the nation would be difficult. It is possible that Hussein's replacement would not be much of an improvement. A war without concrete plans will likely be a disaster, yet the Bush administration continues to push for just such a war.

The Bush administration's proposed war with Iraq is ill-conceived. It is grounded in tenuous assumptions, shallow rhetoric, and a reckless desire for glory. A war with no international support will diminish America's global standing, and striking first would set a dangerous precedent for aggressive American overthrow of any disagreeable government. President Bush's plan is a mistake. The United States should not go to war with Iraq.