President Bush is marking the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by drumming up support for his next war. Yet except for the fact that both enemies are radical Arabs rooted in different parts of the Middle East, the two conflicts have little in common. Indeed, the administration has lately abandoned its efforts to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda.
Nearly all Americans supported President Bush's war to remove al-Qaeda from power in Afghanistan. But which of us imagined that a year later we would be on the verge of another wholly unrelated war?
Bush initially declared that the final decision on Iraq would be his alone. But because of qualms expressed by allies and by senior members of his own and his father's administrations, Bush will take his case to the United Nations tomorrow and then to Congress. Only days ago the administration was dismissing the idea of one last effort to get Iraq to admit weapons inspectors. And top officials were truculently insisting that the United States would go it alone if necessary. But now, in an effort to boost faltering public support, Bush is evidently willing to give inspections one last try.
In principle this is all good news. It comports with the careful architecture of the Constitution that makes the president military commander in chief but gives Congress the power to declare war. Bush's belated appeal for UN support also is a grudging acceptance of international law; nations -- even the United States -- are not supposed to launch preemptive wars except as part of collective security efforts with the blessing of the international community.
Unfortunately, all of these maneuvers could also turn out to be traps. Bush may well give Saddam one last chance to admit inspectors. But he is likely to request a congressional endorsement for an inspection ultimatum combined with support for an invasion if Saddam refuses. Congress would have a hard time denying the president such a resolution, and Bush would control the actual bargaining with the Iraqis.
The most important armchair general in this scenario is Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser. If Bush can get an October congressional war resolution, he is back in the role of commander in chief with broad bipartisan support, and war talk crowds out other election issues such as the economy. Is this view too cynical? The administration knew that Saddam Hussein was a menace from the moment that Bush took office. Given that little new intelligence information has been produced to justify a preemptive war, General Rove's timing is more than a little suspect.
There are plenty of questions to be asked, and Congress may yet find the nerve to ask them. Why are we so sure deterrence will fail? Why not trade an enforceable inspection plan for Saddam's right to stay in office? What do we imagine it will be like to actually occupy Iraq? What is the likely effect on the rest of the Middle East, including the Israel-Palestine conflict?
Republican skepticism is not limited to veterans of the first Bush administration. Republican senators and representatives with close ties to the military among the most dubious about an invasion and its aftermath. Sources say that if Bush tried to force a war resolution through Congress right now, he might not even carry his own party.
With a close midterm election looming, Bush could try to make support for a resolution a partisan loyalty test. He could remind Republican legislators that the GOP is much better positioned in November if the subject is war rather than, say, pension protections, unemployment, and prescription drugs. It would be appalling if so consequential a decision were guided by election posturing.
At the same time, the president has been forced into a process that sometimes brings out the best in America. The upcoming hearings on whether to go to war are likely to rival the Fulbright hearings on Vietnam and the Watergate hearings as national debates that engage the broader public. They will educate voters, and may even yield an informed consensus.
So this could be one of those moments when the United States lives up to its promise as a democracy that deliberates carefully before undertaking great and risky crusades. As the president goes through his ceremonial paces today and in weeks to come, maybe the enormity of this national decision will move even him. Perhaps we will truly honor those who died a year ago by being the democracy we so easily invoke.