February 25, 2003
CHARACTER AS A GUIDE TO POLICY:
Bush Seeks to Help Blair at Home by Going Back to U.N. on Iraq (PATRICK E. TYLER, February 25, 2003, NY Times)President Bush's decision to go all out to win a second Security Council endorsement to wage war on Iraq was made primarily to help a friend and ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, say experts who follow British affairs. But the determined opposition of France, Germany and Russia expose Mr. Bush to the risk of diplomatic embarrassment."He has to do it primarily because it is now a necessary action to ease Tony Blair's problems," with the torrent of popular domestic opposition to war, said James R. Schlesinger, a former secretary of defense and a member of the Defense Policy Board that advises the Pentagon. "It is also an indication of our deep and abiding hope in the efficacy of the U.N.," Mr. Schlesinger added.
As recently as last month, the White House acted as if it would not return to the Security Council for a second resolution. But Mr. Blair, stung by criticism at home, urged the administration to reconsider. It is not clear, however, that Mr. Bush will get the nine votes needed to prevail in the Council. If he does, there is no guarantee that France or Russia or China will not veto the resolution.
Late last week, it was not clear whether Mr. Bush would gamble on the prospect of a highly visible loss in the Security Council after the ebullient highs of last November when the Council voted 15 to 0 to affirm the administration's muscular stand that President Saddam Hussein must disarm immediately.
But suddenly on Saturday morning, Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, reported a conference call involving the president, the Spanish prime minister, José María Aznar, Mr. Blair and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy to map out the steps at the United Nations that would pave the way to war.
That conference call set off a cascade of diplomatic lobbying on four continents that is continuing. Mr. Bush and the ad hoc coalition he is orchestrating for the coming military campaign are pressing and cajoling governments to adopt the Bush view that the time has come to disarm Mr. Hussein by force.
Mr. Fleischer said today that the President wants, but does not need, United Nations authority to act.
We underestimate sometimes just how much the personal character of even a president may influence their public policies. George W. Bush is famously loyal to friends, staff and allies, so it should come as no surprise that he might delay a war he's more than ready to launch in order to help Tony Blair, who's been a steadfast partner in the war on terror. On the other hand, the war has already begun and since 9-11, short of an Iraqi rising that toppled Saddam for us, there's been nothing that could stop it--that too is a function of the President's character. All the fretting about him letting Saddam off the hook is just silly, precisely because while to do so might win points in the international community, it would be untrue to who he is. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 25, 2003 12:07 PM
Chiramaniac reads opinion polls too. He knows that overwhelming majorities in every country (including the US) disapprove of military action that is not allowed by the UNSC. That means that he controls world opinion with his veto power.
He can't topple Bush immediately, due to the constitutional system of the US. But Blair, Aznar and Berlusconi are dead meat if Chiramaniac vetoes. And I don't see Bush going it all alone, against the entire world.
Peter -
a) most polls in the US show majority support for invading Iraq even without UN backing. This overwhelming majority stuff is widely touted in the media but doesn't jive with the actual polls.
b) Chirac and France's reputation has been shredded in the past few weeks by his actions in the UN, in NATO, against the new EU countries, and hanging out with Mugabe. He is not the pillar of moral certitude that the rest of the world will follow. And this isn't assuming evidence of French aid to Iraq isn't discovered during the war.
If Bush has to, he'll go it alone. But you've explained precisely why he won't have to be doing so (Blair, Aznar, Berlusconi, etc.); i.e., why he won't wait forever....
Thus the outcome of the U.N. vote, assuming there is one, does not matter, 1441 having been the key. He goes in if the new vote passes; ditto if it doesn't.
And the French will be left hanging in the wind, if they decide that's what they wish.
Of course the Chiramaniac is no pillar of moral rectitude, but neither are those who follow him right now. It's a bunch of opportunists who know that this is an excellent chance to bring down the US a few notches. Their calculation is that a wounded US will retreat in a new isolationism, which will allow all of Chiramaniac 'friends' to carry out their plans.
And Chiramaniac won't be able to stop them, because he is after all the leader of a third rate power. But that won't be his problem to solve, as he is now 70 years old and serving his last term. French leaders have always be happy to leave the mess to their successors or their neighbors.
Peter:
Bush will gladly go it alone, in fact might prefer to. The war is going to bo over in a few weeks at most and will give the economy a shot in the arm. Both help him. even more helpful, among Americans, would be the High Noon aspect, which we've mentioned before.