Bush's Bomb Saddam Brigade

Is it possible that the United States will wind up going it alone if it invades Iraq? In light of the president's less-than-sterling performance during his recent trip to Europe, the answer to that question is still up for grabs.

Recently, much of the media's attention has been focused on the "What did he know and when did he know it?" questions prompted by: competence doubts vis-a-vis the FBI and CIA; the ongoing crisis in the Middle East; the threat of nuclear conflict over Kashmir; and the near-daily warnings of terrorist attacks flowing out of the Bush Administration. The invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein appear to be on the back burner. While in Europe, the president acknowledged that there were no plans for an invasion on his desk. (Maybe in one of the desk drawers, but not on his desk!)

Despite the supposed lack of a fully-developed invasion plan, there have been a number of significant developments on the "invade or not invade" Iraq front during the past several weeks. On May 24 the Washington Post reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the chairman, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers; the vice chairman, Marine Gen. Peter Pace; and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps -- are less than enthusiastic about a possible invasion. They worry that it could involve more than 200,000 troops and that the losses could be devastating, especially if Saddam Hussein uses biological and chemical weapons. According to Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks, the Joint Chiefs have tried "to persuade the Bush administration to reconsider [its] aggressive posture toward Iraq." As part of this effort, "Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as head of the Central Command would oversee any U.S. military campaign against Iraq, met with President Bush. "

The editors at the New Republic find the downplaying of an invasion of Iraq "disappointing." They reminded the president that the risks of not invading "pale beside the risk of allowing his regime to remain in power." This bit of advice seems well within the bounds of editorializing, but it is followed by a call to "fire some of his generals. Not because they oppose going to war with Iraq, but because they have been advertising their opposition in the nation's newspapers."

William Kristol, the editor of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, is a loud voice for the neoconservative's "invade Iraq as soon as possible" position. He stopped by the Fox News Channel on the Friday before Memorial Day and spoke forcefully in favor of taking out Hussein. It must totally annoy the Generals at the Pentagon to be lectured to by the likes of Kristol, a well-known "chicken hawk."

(For those who need a quick refresher course: Chicken Hawks are those who stand on the sidelines cheering on the troops but who, when faced with the opportunity, decided not to serve in the military.)

Is Bush, as Kristol worries, backing away from tough talk on Hussein because he's changed his mind on an invasion or is it just a matter of timing -- that he didn't want to stir up any more European animosity while on his recent trip? The Post's Ricks reports that during his appearance in Berlin, the president "offered more tough rhetoric about Iraq and other countries he has labeled part of an 'axis of evil.' But at a news conference... he also said that he had told German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: 'I have no war plans on my desk, which is the truth, and that we've got to use all means at our disposal to deal with Saddam Hussein.'"

Neoconservatives in the Driver's Seat

In the June issue of The Washington Monthly, Joshua Micah Marshall takes a close look at the opposing points of view on invading Iraq -- at both the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are raising questions about it, and the "few dozen neoconservative think tank scholars and defense policy intellectuals "that have been pushing Bush to invade Iraq as soon as possible." Of the neocons, Marshall writes: "Few of them have any serious knowledge of the Arab world, the Middle East, or Islam. Fewer still have served in the armed forces." Despite these comments, Marshall believes that this "bunch of hot-headed ideologues... have turned out to been right" the last few times.