One problem is with the icons. George W. Bush’s cowboy act, while rooted in American mythology and often eloquently scripted, is actually not reflective of today’s United States. Cowboys are extinct; lawyers rule the range. From TV to the best-seller list, we’re awash in the legal culture, explicit and implied.
The reason Colin Powell’s 90-minute United Nations speech worked so well last week was that he treated the public like a jury. On “Law and Order,” we are asked to look for relevant facts and weigh the evidence. On cable news, we watch a zippier version of the courtroom adversarial system, when even the loudmouth guests must at least account for the other side’s argument. So when a politician just asserts something–without taking the time to establish it–he insults our intelligence.
The secretary of State didn’t do that. He’s not a lawyer, but he knows how to play one on TV. (And it’s obvious why for nearly 20 years he’s had a reputation as the best briefer in Washington.) The evidence he presented varied in quality and persuasiveness. For instance, the fact that an Al Qaeda-style killer from a terrorist group called Ansar Al-Islam was spotted in Baghdad doesn’t mean much, especially when The New York Times last week found the head of that organization in Norway.
But at least Powell recognizes that we are all from Missouri now, the “Show Me” state. He showed us some real evidence–and showed up both Iraq and critics like me who had doubted whether the administration would ever respect us enough to explain itself. By making his case at the U.N., Powell also set an important precedent: unilateralism is for dummies.
I thought the best part of the briefing came on the question of aluminum tubes. Until now, the Bush administration has simply asserted that the tubes could be used for centrifuges necessary to build nuclear weapons. This, despite the fact that inspectors believe the tubes are in fact for permitted rockets. Instead of ignoring that finding–as the administration has until now–Powell confronted it. He detailed that the aluminum in the tubes was expensively finished to a standard far beyond what would be necessary for rocket launches, where the tubes immediately become shrapnel. This lent credence to the idea that Saddam is still working hard to go nuclear. It’s easier to trust the U.S. government when it’s explaining its conclusions rather than imposing them. Accountability dispels arrogance.
And by the way, Sherlock, there was a smoking gun. Powell produced an audio intercept of Iraqi officers discussing the removal of “nerve agents.” Can any fair minded person who heard Powell’s presentation deny that Iraq is in “material breach” of U.N. Resolution 1441? This decisively shifts the burden of the argument. Now it’s the doves who are danger of ignoring the U.N. But even hawks must admit that it’s a scary time, especially if Bush and Powell are right and Saddam has authorized his battlefield commanders to use chemical weapons. Despite its confident claims, the U.S. military is not “ready” to face a contaminated battlefield, if only because it has never done so before. Even if all the protective suits and gas masks work (a big if), the use of such weapons will inhibit U.S. forces in ways that are hard to predict. Congressional investigators say it may be hard, for instance, to punch in the coordinates for airstrikes while wearing heavy protective gloves.
This is reason to pray for a coup, but not to back off. That would be like a juror voting to acquit despite overwhelming evidence of guilt–out of fear. The response to fear is to act, not cower. In that sense, the argument for war is, finally, an argument about the meaning of September 11, even if the Al Qaeda connection to Saddam turns out to be bogus.
To me, it’s a short-term/long-term calculation. Short term, war in Iraq will fan the flames of anti-Americanism and probably help Al Qaeda recruitment. But long term, there is greater risk in the Mideast status quo than in upheaval. The only way to improve the chances of the next generation of Americans living without the threat of terrorism is to remake the region, much as Asia has been transformed. And the best way to do that is to start with Iraq, before insisting on major reform in Saudi Arabia and Egypt in exchange for continued patronage. It’s a huge job, and we’ll no doubt fail some of the time and act hypocritically. But even semisuccess is better than today’s “stability.” That’s because even semidemocracies don’t breed terrorists.
A decade ago, the famous “Powell Doctrine” instructed that every intervention must come with an “exit strategy.” There is none for Iraq; the United States will likely be there for a decade or more. So the author owes us an explanation of how his doctrine died. Last week, Colin Powell walked us through the reasons for the war. Now he must respect us enough to lay out humbly–before military action–the immense burdens of keeping the peace. The jury can handle it.
