US Hawks Fan Flames on Iraq

(Toronto Star, August 8, 2002)

Who is making foreign policy in Washington these days? Certainly not Secretary of State Colin Powell whose stance as a dove cuts no ice at the higher reaches of the Bush Administration. In fact, the most dramatic foreign policy initiatives come from a little known body called the Defense Advisory Board, located in the Department of Defense.

Originally established in the late 1980s as an advisory board on long‑term policy for the Department of Defense, the DAB languished in obscurity until one of Washington's leading hawks, Richard Perle was appointed Chair. Perle, often referred to as the "Prince of Darkness"because of his consistent opposition to arms control treaties, was assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1987. During this period he almost single‑handedly helped defeat a number of arms control initiatives, and today he stands as an articulate opponent of U.S. involvement in international disarmament or legal justice measures. In these efforts he is supported by the DAB whose members compose a who's who of Washington's neo‑conservative establishment including former Reagan national security adviser Richard Allen, former House Republican leader Newt Gingrich, former CIA head James Woolsey, ex‑Vice President Dan Quayle and Henry Kissinger.

Thanks in part to the DAB, the keywords in U.S. foreign policy are no longer multilateralism and deterrence, but unilateralism and pre‑emption. Before the Gulf War for example, the Bush, Sr. Administration sought and received support from the United Nations and NATO for an attack on Iraq. After September 11, however, the Bush Administration vowed to go it alone when vital American interests are at stake. Richard Perle explained this new unilateralism in stark terms in October 2001 when he said that Secretary of State Colin Powell was "simply wrong" in thinking the U.S. needed to build coalition support before attacking Iraq . According to Perle: "If the coalition is going to protect a terrorist state like Saddam, then to hell with the coalition."

Even more forceful than Perle is James Woolsey, another DAB member and a fervent supporter of invading Iraq. When asked about the fact that not one Arab country supported attacking Iraq, Woolsey replied, "I think one nutty way to make foreign policy is to collect a large number of nations and decide to do what the lowest common denominator wants. If you approach foreign policy and security policy that way, you'll never accomplish anything."

The DAB has also backed the change from deterrence to pre‑emption. From the beginning of the Cold War until recently, U.S. defense policy was based on the premise that the threat of massive nuclear retaliation would deter any potential aggressor from launching an attack on the U.S. Once again, September 11 changed the equation.

After all, the new hawks point out, not even the certainty of death deterred the September 11 hijackers nor does it deter today's suicide bombers in Israel, Pakistan or elsewhere. Moreover, they ask, what if, instead of box knives, the hijackers had had access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons? The prospect is horrible to contemplate, but it is not far‑fetched. Given the claim that Saddam Hussein has, or shortly will have access to weapons of mass destruction, is it not incumbent upon the U.S. to pre‑emptively destroy those weapons before they can be used?

According to Perle, "The argument that we could deter Saddam by threatening to destroy him if he used weapons of mass destruction against us is no longer relevant, if you allow the possibility that he could deliver weapons of mass destruction through anonymous third parties. And there's no question he has the capacity to do that is sufficient grounds for his removal."

However, the problem for Richard Perle and the new hawks is that although President Bush seems to have been won over by their arguments, there is little support elsewhere for an attack. Except for Tony Blair, whose support weakens by the minute, neither Canada, nor Europe nor the Arab countries of the world support the use of force against Iraq. And, in the face of November's mid‑term congressional election, even Congress is waffling.

Thus, while a final decision on Iraq is on hold until at least early winter, it is anybody's guess as to whether the new hawks have been successful in fanning the flames of war in the Middle East. ٱ

© Harvey G. Simmons, 2003