August 28, 2002

POLITICS AND POLICY

Members of Gulf War Council Are Divided on Attacking Iraq

 

By JEANNE CUMMINGS

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

 

08/06/02

 

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney's sharp rebuke this week of critics of the Bush administration's approach to Iraq is striking for two reasons: He wrote that passage into a speech himself, and the words were aimed at rebutting some of his closest colleagues from the first Bush administration.

 

A decade ago, Mr. Cheney was a member of the "Gang of Eight," an ad hoc war council of top White House advisers assembled by President George H. W. Bush to guide the 1991 war with Iraq. But today those same men, who gathered at the White House on an April afternoon 11 years ago for a victory lunch, are sharply divided over the prospects of going a second round with Saddam Hussein.

 

Joining the first President Bush and then-Defense Secretary Cheney in that inner circle were national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft; his deputy, Robert Gates; Secretary of State James Baker III; Vice President Dan Quayle; Colin Powell, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.

 

Today, Mr. Cheney has become the foremost spokesman for a tough policy of moving pre-emptively to oust Mr. Hussein, and his views are echoed in large measure by Mr. Quayle. But Mr. Scowcroft, by dint of a recent op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, has become the most prominent voice arguing against rushing into a war with Iraq. Mr. Baker, in his own article in the New York Times, agreed military action is the most likely way to oust Mr. Hussein, but counseled working through the United Nations to build an international coalition against Iraq before acting -- the path the current president's fathher took.

 

And Mr. Powell, now the Secretary of State, is widely thought to be the senior adviser to the current President Bush most uneasy about going to war with Iraq.

 

The great unknown in all this, of course, is the opinion of the first President Bush, and the substance of any private deliberations may have had with the current president. There is no sign that the views expressed by Mr. Scowcroft or Mr. Baker are necessarily shared by the elder Mr. Bush. Mr. Scowcroft, for example, neither told the former president in advance about the article he wrote on Iraq, nor sought his approval for it, an associate of both men says.

 

The two Presidents Bush are very close, and, at family gatherings and in telephone conversations, often discuss the events of the day, White House aides say. But the senior Mr. Bush, in keeping with a longstanding personal policy regarding his son's administration, declined an interview request for this article. And the current president has said repeatedly that he hasn't made up his mind about how to proceed in dealing with Iraq.

 

But just Tuesday, in a meeting in Texas with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Bush reiterated his belief that the U.S. needs to act to change the leadership in Baghdad. "The president made very clear again that he believes that Saddam Hussein is a menace to world peace, a menace to regional peace, and that the world and the region will be safer and better off without Saddam Hussein," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

 

That general idea -- that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure who should be replaced -- is something the Gang of Eight can agree upon. The fissures are largely along tactical lines: Is the effort to change leaders in Iraq so important that it should take precedence over the broader war on terrorism? How much effort should the U.S. devote to building an international coalition? Should the Bush administration go to the U.N. or Congress for endorsements? Is the current level of threat sufficient to prompt U.S. action? And if not, what would be?

 

To some extent, the debate over how to proceed reflects a much broader debate among Republican foreign-policy thinkers over whether the U.S. should act on its own in today's post-Cold War world. The current president and his aides seem far more willing to strike out on foreign-policy paths that don't have international backing, while many in the former Bush administration were more inclined to think the U.S. was usually better off nurturing international support even if that slowed down the action.

 

The debate was sharpened earlier this month by Mr. Scowcroft, arguably the Gang of Eight member who remains closest to the senior Mr. Bush. Mr. Scowcroft wrote that a confrontation with Iraq today could potentially "destroy" the war on terrorism, the current administration's top national-security priority.

 

In addition, Mr. Scowcroft said there isn't an international consensus for an attack because there isn't enough evidence yet to demonstrate that Mr. Hussein poses an immediate threat.

 

Mr. Baker followed by urging the administration, as Mr. Scowcroft did, to try to win U.N. support for another round of unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq before launching an attack.

 

On the other side of the debate stand Mr. Cheney and Mr. Quayle. They both argue that Mr. Hussein's regime must be expelled before it has enough time to build a nuclear weapon or fine-tune his ability to use chemical and biological weapons. Like the president, Mr. Cheney suggests that the U.S. hasn't the time to wait for an international consensus to gel before protecting its own interests.

 

Similarly, in an interview, Mr. Quayle, who now serves on the Pentagon Defense Policy Board, said he is convinced that if Mr. Hussein develops nuclear weapons "there isn't any doubt he would use them or he would blackmail a nation with them." In such circumstances, "by not having a policy of pre-emption, you are putting the security interests of our country in dire jeopardy."

 

Mr. Sununu and Mr. Gates didn't return telephone messages.

 

There is another area of dispute. Both the current President Bush and Mr. Cheney have suggested a strong possibility that Mr. Hussein would someday share with terrorists weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Scowcroft took exception to that premise, arguing that cooperation with rogue terrorist groups and outsiders doesn't fit with the track record of Mr. Hussein, who prefers to maintain iron-fisted control over all those around him.

 

When the new Bush team entered office two years ago, most anti-Hussein forces feared that Mr. Cheney would argue against another confrontation with the Iraqi dictator, precisely because he was a part of the war council that decided not to seek his ouster after liberating Kuwait a decade ago.

 

But Sept. 11 changed all that, prompting Mr. Cheney to focus on the horror that could be unleashed by a marriage of Mr. Hussein and the kind of terrorist group that carried out the attacks here, says Mary Matalin, his spokeswoman.

 

"That's what is missing from these stories," she says. "Who could have imagined 12 years ago that extremists could get to our shore?" she says.

 

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, says differences of opinion may be inevitable because the two administrations face different kinds of threats from Iraq.

 

As for the White House, he says, "Their public posture has to be, 'We welcome their criticism.' To me, at least, the Cheney speech makes it clear they aren't listening to it because they don't agree with it and they are going to proceed."

 

Write to Jeanne Cummings at jeanne.cummings@wsj.com4

 

Updated August 28, 2002

 

Copyright 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Printing, distribution, and use of this material is governed by your Subscription agreement and Copyright laws.

For information about subscribing go to http://www.wsj.com

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Return to article index