World News Summary : News Headlines : Discussion Forums

Thursday, August 8, 2002 - Web posted at 6:21:52 pm GMT

WASHINGTON - US President George W Bush may face a divided Cabinet, a reluctant military, a lukewarm Congress, a confused electorate and stiff opposition from key allies to a US invasion of Iraq, but if the president is determined, none of these are likely to stop him.

Political scientists and historians said presidential power in foreign affairs since the end of the Cold War had grown to the extent that there were far fewer constraints on Bush than on past presidents.

"In practice, he can do almost whatever he wants in foreign affairs. There is little to check US power and presidential power," said American University historian Allan Lichtman.

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings last week, kicking off what is likely to be an intense public debate about the wisdom of invading Iraq, named by Bush as part of an
"axis of evil" intent on seeking weapons of mass destruction.
Bush himself said last week military action was not imminent. But he sounded as determined as ever to get rid of Saddam, whom his father, former President George Bush, failed to remove at the end of the Gulf War 11 years ago.

"We will not allow one of the world's most dangerous leaders to have the world's most dangerous weapons and hold the United States and our friends and allies hostage ... We'll deal with Saddam Hussein. And he knows that," Bush said.

While Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are thought to be pressing for a military onslaught early next year, Secretary of State Colin Powell remains skeptical, as do several key congressional figures, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected Republican voice on foreign policy.

Leading Democrats, including Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the chairman of the panel that held the hearings, say they believe an invasion is inevitable but the administration must first seek a congressional resolution approving the action.

"A lot more spade work has to be done to make a case to the American people, its allies and the region," Biden said.

Few politicians want to be branded as soft on Iraq, or risk casting a vote that could come back to haunt them in future elections. Some Congress-watchers believe a war resolution would win the support of virtually all Republicans and two-thirds of Democrats.

A steady stream of leaks of possible military plans to the press also suggests there are deep misgivings, if not outright opposition, in senior ranks of the US military to an invasion. But even this would not deflect Bush if he were determined, although it might make him think twice.

"The president has considerable authority as commander in chief, and does not require either unity in his Cabinet or unanimous support from the uniformed military services," said Stephen Walt, a government professor at Harvard University.

The US public has hardly begun to debate the prospect of another war. But key allies in the Middle East, including Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as well as close Nato friends in Europe and Canada, are openly opposed.

"International opposition will be great but it does seem to dissipate once the United States sets its course. I've rarely seen the United States fail to get its way with something like this," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

"There is not much backbone in the world against the United States. It has so many carrots and sticks. Some countries will snipe but the United States is so dominant right now it would take a lot to stop us," he said.

Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, a supporter of attacking Iraq, told senators, "If we go in alone and remove Saddam Hussein, we'll find that success has many allies."

In a 1999 book, ‘The Debate over Intervention’, Richard Haass, now a senior State Department official, argued that in the post-Cold War environment, the United States had far greater freedom to deploy military force than before.

"The erosion of blocs and alliances made it easier (in the political sense) to use force against individual states," he wrote.
The notion that one man should have so much power appals some US constitutional scholars, who also argue it is vital that
Bush seek approval from Congress, which has the constitutional authority to declare war, before launching what will be seen in much of the world as a war of aggression.

"The idea that one man alone would have the power to launch a war of this magnitude would have the framers of the Constitution spinning in their graves. They wanted to ensure we could never rush into a conflict as devastating as this one could be without adequate debate and national support," said Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, a conservative think tank.

But even invasion opponents note that the American people instinctively rally behind the president if he decides on military action. - Nampa-Reuters

•  Zimbabwe cholera toll now near 500
•  India demands Pakistan hand over terror suspects
•  Tainted milk affects 294 000
•  Rice plays the piano for Queen Elizabeth
•  Cops in dark after lamp theft
•  Thai court disbands ruling party
•  Pirates fire on US cruise ship in hijack attempt
•  Britons on a budget prefer sex to gossip
•  Iraq's 'Chemical Ali' gets second death sentence
•  French need biggest condoms
•  Obama names a hard-nosed and pragmatic national security team: analysts
•  Oscar winner's brother-in-law arrested in triple murder case
•  Coldplay, Leona Lewis most tuned in
•  Bohemian New Yorkers make art sexy again
•  Congolese refugees brave lions to flee violence
•  Bombs kill over 30 in Baghdad, Mosul
•  No ransom for seized Saudi tanker
•  Mumbai gunmen trained in Pakistan
•  Anti-apartheid activist Nthato Motlana dies
•  Global AIDS crisis overblown? Some dare to say so
•  Celebrity blogs let stars speak for themselves
•  Britney says she feels old and boring