While the case against Iraq is being made every day in the media and on Capitol Hill, opinion throughout the country and throughout the world still has yet to move in favor of deposing Saddam Hussein's regime. In a televised speech Monday, Bush gave a similar argument to the one he gave at the United Nations. It was a speech full of moral reasons to attack Iraq, but it became nebulous on facts and evidence. Although military action seems inevitable, the Bush administration has to claim legitimacy for their plan in the minds of citizens, a claim that they cannot make.
The first problem is the concept of the pre-emptive strike. America is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to creating legitimacy: America cannot prove Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but it does not want to jeopardize allies or interests in the region by waiting for proof. The problem is that while everyone knows Iraq has these weapons it just doesn't have proof. Just as arresting a guilty man without evidence goes against justice, attacking a country in the name of justice without tangible evidence raises serious questions of legitimacy.
It is proving difficult to sell Saddam Hussein to the global community as the ultimate evil. While there is little doubt that he has weapons of mass destruction, he is far from being, as Bush tried to say, the next Cuban Missile Crisis. On Tuesday, George C. Tenet, the director of the CIA, told the Senate that there was currently little reason to believe Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction unless provoked. Additionally, as of today there had been no concrete connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. Without links to terrorism and with no plans to use weapons of mass destruction, Saddam seems less like a crazed super-threat and more like every other country in the region that America is ambivalent towards.
Domestically, a reason exists as to why support has not been in favor of a military intervention: Americans are not that concerned. According to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, the majority of Americans are more worried about the economy than Iraq. While Iraq has been on the lips of officials for months, it would be prudent with midterm elections approaching to make steps in listening to and improving the lives of the public.
Lastly, support would be stronger if the plans for winning were clear. It is not clear to the American public where we will go next, after Saddam is overthrown and a budding democracy is put into place. Another quest for Osama bin Laden seems unlikely: Osama bin Laden's trail turned cold long ago. One wonders which country is next on the list for America, or whether such zealous action will be used domestically. The coming war with Iraq calls into question what actions a terror-fearing country will commit in the name of safety without proof and without complete legitimacy.
