Viewing the War as a Lesson to the World

The New York Times ^ | April 6, 2003 | David E. Sanger

[Cicero]

POLICY Viewing the War as a Lesson to the World By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, April 5 — Shortly after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any "hostile acts" they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of President Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation.

Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word — "Good" — and went back to work.

It was a small but telling moment on the sidelines of the war. For a year now, the president and many in his team have privately described the confrontation with Saddam Hussein as something of a demonstration conflict, an experiment in forcible disarmament. It is also the first war conducted under a new national security strategy, which explicitly calls for intervening before a potential enemy can strike.

Mr. Bush's aides insist they have no intention of making Iraq the first of a series of preventive wars. Diplomacy, they argue, can persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programs. Intensive inspections can flush out a similar nuclear program in Iran. Threats and incentives can prevent Syria from sponsoring terrorism or fueling a guerrilla movement in Iraq.

Yet this week, as images of American forces closing in on Baghdad played on television screens, some of Mr. Bush's top aides insisted they were seeing evidence that leaders in North Korea and Iran, but not Syria, might be getting their point.

"Iraq is not just about Iraq," a senior administration official who played a crucial role in putting the strategy together said in an interview last week. It was "a unique case," the official said. But in Mr. Bush's mind, the official added, "It is of a type."

In fact, some administration officials are talking about the lessons Mr. Bush expects the world to take from this conflict, and they are debating about where he may decide to focus when it is over.

The president seemed to allude to those lessons in his radio address this morning, saying his decision to oust Mr. Hussein was part of his plan to "not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another Sept. 11 — this time, perhaps, with chemical, biological or nuclear terror."

But how to turn that broad principle into policy is already emerging as the next fault line in the administration, as well as in its relationships with the nations it alienated on the way to the Iraq conflict.

Some hawks inside the administration are convinced that Iraq will serve as a cautionary example of what can happen to other states that refuse to abandon their programs to build weapons of mass destruction, an argument that John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, has made several times recently.

The administration's more pragmatic wing fears that the war's lesson will be just the opposite: that the best way to avoid American military action is to build a fearsome arsenal quickly and make the cost of conflict too high for Washington.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been the most vocal in insisting that Iraq is about Iraq and nothing more. "I think it's a bit of an overstatement to say that now this one's pocketed, on to the next place," he said as the war began.

But Mr. Powell was taken aback — not for the first time — by Mr. Rumsfeld's comments about Iran and Syria. A senior aide said Mr. Powell had cautioned the administration against any public talk of a "domino effect," fearing it would further inflame Arab governments and fuel North Korea's considerable insecurities.

"His view is that we've made enough enemies in the past five months, and we don't need to go looking for another fight," one of his senior advisers said.

In fact, only Mr. Rumsfeld seems willing to name potential adversaries these days. But several senior administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they saw signs that some countries were reconsidering their behavior.

Their newest is North Korea, which Gary Samore, the nonproliferation specialist in the Clinton White House, recently called "the dog that hasn't barked."

North Korea's diplomatic broadsides at the United States have been toned down in recent days. No one has seen Kim Jong Il, the country's reclusive leader, in months, and some experts say they believe he may be staying out of sight for fear of his own personal security. So far, at least, the country has not made good on its threat to restart a plutonium reprocessing facility that has the capacity to to produce fuel for a half-dozen nuclear bombs this year. American intelligence agencies had expected him to do so by now.

"He may have simply encountered technical troubles," said one North Korea expert in the administration. "But he may also be looking at CNN and considering the wisdom of his next move. The fact is, We don't know."

Another possible factor, Mr. Bush's aides say, is that China, which is North Korea's main supplier of oil, has finally begun to deliver tough messages to Mr. Kim's government.

Iran may also be newly cautious, the administration argues. After Mr. Rumsfeld issued his warning on March 28 that the United States would not tolerate the entry into Iraq of the Badr Corps — which he said was "trained, equipped and directed by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard" — the incursion was apparently cut off.

Syria is a very different case. In an interview published this week in a pro-Syrian Lebanese newspaper, Bashar al-Assad, Syria's 36-year old president, who inherited the post from his father three years ago, said the war only proved that Mr. Bush "wanted oil and wanted to redraw the map of the region in accordance with the Israeli interests." He urged Arabs to learn from Lebanon's history of "resistance."

Stephen P. Cohen, the Middle East specialist at Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York, said: "The Arabs understand that this war is happening at two levels — on the ground in Iraq, and then an ideological war once the ground war is over. They know how the first one is going to turn out, and they are debating how to wage the second."

Mr. Assad seemed to suggest in his interview that Syria would be a new target for Mr. Bush, because it "is the heart of Arabism."

Mr. Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, not surprisingly, describes the agenda very differently. "You don't treat every case with the identical remedy," she said today. Even when the problem appears the same — weapons of mass destruction that could be passed to rogue states or terrorists — "there are lots of ways" to accomplish the president's goals, she said

"In North Korea, we're dealing with the issue in one particular way; with Iran, we're dealing with it in other ways," she added. But she also noted the president's belief that there is "a positive agenda for moving forward that could be catalyzed by Iraq."

Several of the hawks outside the administration who pressed for war with Iraq are already moving on to the next step, and perhaps further than the president is ready to go. R. James Woolsey, the former director of central intelligence, said on Wednesday that Iraq was the opening of a "fourth world war," after World War I, World War II and the cold war, and that America's enemies included the religious rulers in Iran, states like Syria and Islamic extremist terrorist groups.

[goldstategop]

Bump! The President's pithy response and smile speaks volumes about how much the world's changed since this war began than all the yammerings of the liberals combined.

[appeal2]

They all hate us anyhow, so lets drop the big one now.

[Republic]

The depth of your comment is noted. What a succinct reflection of this article. BRAVO, goldstategop. There is no topping your remark.

[Cicero]

I've said that Syria is logically next on the list. It now looks as if the NYTimes thinks the same.

Hopefully the Iranian Mullahs will fall after an internal revolution.

[xJones]

Randy Newman, gotta love him.

[AmericanVictory]

We speak in a language which they understand once again.

[Boundless]

> Diplomacy, they argue, can persuade North Korea to
> give up its nuclear weapons programs.

That's even less likely to work with Kimchee than it did
with Saddam, but then this is the NYT spinning unnamed
sources again.

> ...we've made enough enemies in the past five months ...

I realize that they NYT is putting words in Powell's
mouth, but I'd characterize as: we just found out who our
enemies really were all along.

> ...signs that some countries were reconsidering their behavior.

Those that hate us will do so regardless, to they might as
well at least respect us, or failing that, fear us. In any
case, they need to know there's a new sheriff in town.

[goldstategop]

If they don't understand Texas-speak now, its too bad. Thank heaven we have a cowboy in office who believes saddling up to police the range is better any day than givin' a whole lotta empty speeches about nothin.'

[1066AD]

Agreed, however if W wants to be elected again he'd better also pay attention the domestic issues too i.e. the job market. Whilst it's great to have the time to follow the details etc of the war, a paycheck would be great :) The job scene is pitiful and apparently not showing much sign of improvement.

[goldstategop]

Give it time.... it'll take a couple of months for the economy to rev up and when this war's over, it'll start on a path to recovery. People are so impatient about everything. This is a country of natural-born optimists. Our fortunes will improve.

[lizbet]

This sums up exactly what Clinton was all about...his presidency was a whole lot about nothing!

[EBITDA]

I don't think the US has ever relished the role of world policeman, but the reality is, no one, and I mean no one is capable of the job the way we are--capable in terms of strength and capable in terms of the kind of values that prevent these kinds of actions from becoming imperialism.

If you have the strength that we have, based in the values we have, every once in a while you have to remind the world that there are some things we won't put up with. Sometimes you have to show your strength to prevent having to use it. Our efforts in Iraq will demonstrate for those who so quickly forget that we mean what we say and we are ready to back it up. Regimes from North Korea, to Syria, Iran and Libya will think twice before crossing us.

The Bush doctrine is really just a continuation of Reagan's peace through strength. It brought down the Iron Curtain, and it is now sending a message that terrorism must stop. Or else.

[Intolerant in NJ]

Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word — "Good" — and went back to work...Old Chinese saying: "Kill the chicken to teach the monkey".......

[Billthedrill]

He urged Arabs to learn from Lebanon's history of "resistance."

And so they should. Young Mr. Assad might be reminded of Syria's contribution to Lebanon's history here, and how his daddy took a large army in to occupy the place and settle the matter if this resistance once and for all. That is a lesson being demonstrated in Iraq at the moment by a somewhat larger army.

The old king's death was unfortunate in this regard - he was an evil, manipulative bastard, but he knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. His son had better grow up very quickly, because the game he's decided to play tends to be very fatal for the losers, especially in the Middle East. If he is not restrained by wiser heads or listens too closely to the ideologues he will end up placing himself not in Saddam's position, but in that of the late, unlamented Taliban government: openly offering state support to terrorists targeting the U.S. and its interests. This does not necessarily include Israel, but the ideologues will be doing their best to convince him otherwise.

If there is one lesson to be learned from both Afghanistan and Iraq it is that formal state support for terrorism, overt or covert, may result in a forcible change of government. The ideologues will tell Assad that this will unite the Arab world against us - Osama bin Laden told the Taliban the same thing.

[RandyRep]

These guys must be reading FR - some of us postulated a week or more ago.

Iraq is the big convincer - we can do it to anybody else - so get with the program. Abandon WMD development, don't support terrorists, don't be despotic to your people, and the USA can get along fine with you.

[Nick Danger]

It's too bad about the New York Times. Except for a few items in this article that I recognize as being from public sources, I don't believe a word of this article.

More accurately, I don't believe that the author actually talked to as many people as he cites. I think he made most of them up. I think this is a kind of editorial or essay written around a series of fabricated quotations that are meant to lend substance to what is really just conjecture and opinion.

To believe that this article is true, I have to believe that a writer for the New York Times is well-connected in the Bush White House, and that people in an administation known for not leaking are talking out of school to a reporter from the Times, a newspaper that is positively hostile to the administration. Well, I don't believe that.

I also don't believe this:

In fact, some administration officials are talking about the lessons Mr. Bush expects the world to take from this conflict, and they are debating about where he may decide to focus when it is over.

That statement is probably true for some interns down in the basement, who spend their time wondering what the Big Dog might do next. But the people who actually work with Bush every day are top-flight people. They are the sort who, by now, know how Bush is going to come down on an issue before it's even discussed. If the author did not simply fabricate these "officials" he supposedly talked to, he certainly exaggerated their roles by calling them "officials." We're probably talking about the Under-Assistant West Coast Promo Man, or no one at all.

This style of "journalism" -- essays peppered with fabricated quotations -- is becoming all too common. These pieces are becoming a major nuisance because they make it difficult to tell what is really "reporting," and what is just some guy's ideas about what might have happened in the White House.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

US Navy Seabee gets a hug from an Iraqi boy near a playground built by the Seabees in Umm Qasr(AFP/Roberto Schmidt)