Me Three

Credibility Gap

Alex Urevick

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

A few days ago President Bush stood before the General Assembly of the United Nations and stated that the authority of the U.N. was under attack by Iraq. Most of the world seemed to accept this notion and quickly voiced support for requiring Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions or pay a price. Even Saudi Arabia, which has been very vocal in opposing war against Iraq, announced that it would be “obliged” to allow the US to use bases in their country for a U.N. sponsored war. Yesterday Iraq appeared to bow to world pressure, announcing that they would unconditionally allow U.N. weapons inspectors back to do their job.

Those in the press who declared that the multilateral approach to dealing with Iraq had won the day over the “preemptive strike” doctrine put forth by the Vice President were fooling themselves. One thing should be understood right away, America has no plans for allowing weapons inspectors to successfully complete their job and will do anything and everything in their power to make sure that Iraq cannot or will not fulfill the obligations set down by the U.N. Even if Saddam were to let the United Nations inspect every palace, Mosque, hospital, school, and military installation, which is highly unlikely, the United States would be forced to find some other way to justify an attack.

The Bush administration has already publicly announced what they really want, and it isn’t just getting rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. What they really want is a new leader in Iraq, i.e. a regime change, one who will obey not only the authority of the United Nations, but also that of the world’s only “real” power, the U.S. At this point anything less than the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will be seen by many as a huge and unacceptable loss for the US’s “credibility.”

“Credibility,” when used in this context, mean’s that others believe that if you make a threat you will follow it up with action. Having your threats seen as credible is the cornerstone of deterring a potential enemy from attacking you. If your enemy believes that you are all talk, or will not back up your talk with action, they are more likely to attack you or your interests, and less likely to bow to your demands. “Credibility” was the reason given for many of the wars the U.S. fought during the cold war, both overt and covert. The fact that we never battled directly with the Soviet Union must be partially attributed to the small wars of “credibility” we fought, such as Vietnam and Guatemala.

Old habits die hard. Even though the Cold War is now a fading memory, many of the members of the Bush Administration are old “Cold Warriors” and still cling to that precious “credibility.”

Saddam Hussein is, if nothing else, a survivor. He knows that the United States has made verbal commitment to topple him and now will stop at nothing to achieve this goal. This is why he is allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors back in. His goal is most likely to force the Bush Administration to reveal their true intentions, and thus fracture the multilateral coalition that appears to be forming against him. At the very least, he hopes to make the United States look like a tyrant, and demonstrate that he is not the only threat to the U.N.’s authority.

If the Bush Administration made it their goal simply to remove the weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, then they could either claim victory if Iraq did allow the U.N. unfettered access to all the sites they request, or use their failure to do so as an excuse for bombing. However, the Bush Administration, by publicly announcing their intentions before real plans were laid or negotiations settled, have left themselves with very little room to maneuver. Now it appears as though we must go to war simply to save face, to ensure that the United States’ authority, not that of the U.N., is not driven to crisis.

One has to wonder; what was the motivation of those members of the Bush Administration who voiced their opinions about our intentions towards Iraq? Was it just a lack of discipline? Did they want to create a situation where they could finally rid themselves of the pesky U.N.? What other motive could George W., Dick Cheney, and Co. have for making invasion of an oil-rich country like Iraq inevitable?

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

Alex Urevick is a student at the New School's Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. He can be contacted at [email protected].