The Drums Beat, but Is War With Iraq on Horizon?

The rumble of war drums for Gulf War II began in early spring. That’s when Ken Pollack got the call from Random House asking if he could speed-write a book on Iraq. The publisher wanted it out by fall--pegged to what then looked like the launch of a U.S. offensive against Saddam Hussein.

“It was about the time Afghanistan was quieting down,” said Pollack, a former Iraq strategist for both the Clinton and current Bush administrations now at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The hawks at the Pentagon began saying: ‘Heck, that was easy. Let’s do Iraq too.’ The media picked up on it. Then others began to take note.”

With the first Senate hearings on Iraq last week, the rumble is now a roar. News networks have lined up talking heads to dissect whatever happens. Think tanks are hosting seminars on the potential impact on world oil supplies, a postwar government in Baghdad, and the plight of ethnic Kurds. And Pollack’s manuscript for “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” went to Random House two weeks ago.

But is war really that close? Or will the sequel to Operation Desert Storm wait until next year--or maybe even President Bush’s second term, assuming he has one?

The rhetoric may be way ahead of the reality, even advocates of an Iraq war admit.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, a leading administration hawk, recently told U.S. troops in Afghanistan: “It’s too dangerous to wait 10 years for them to hit us. Sept. 11 was nothing compared to what an attack with chemical and biological weapons would be--we’re not going to wait forever to solve it.”

“But we aren’t fixed on any particular solution,” he conceded. “There aren’t answers yet.”

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the hearings last week, said Sunday that he believes there probably will be a war. But he added, “There’s a lot more to do,” echoing his earlier prediction that it won’t happen this year. “This is very difficult to do by yourself. There’s a lot to do after [Hussein is] taken down,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Bush faces daunting obstacles to pull off an operation as smooth as the lightning campaign run by his father to liberate tiny, oil-rich Kuwait from Iraq in 1991.

To begin with, the aim differs. In 1991, Bush’s father had a military goal: to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Now the U.S. is facing the political mission of eliminating Hussein’s government and building a new Iraq.

“The planning for this operation is very much influenced by political objectives. And so far, there’s not a consensus on the precise political route we want to take,” said Charles Duelfer, former deputy chairman of the U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq.

The difference redefines both strategy and targets.

“In 1991, the Iraqi army was the enemy. Now Iraqi troops could actually be an ally. So should we target them? Or should we be telling them that their future is bright under new management, so help us make this possible--defect or at least don’t fight us?” Duelfer said.

Other operational considerations are just as complex:

* Iraq’s neighbors still have to be convinced to provide bases or at least allow refueling, overflight and other rights. Visiting Washington last week, Jordan’s King Abdullah II blasted the idea of war as “ludicrous” and a “tremendous mistake.” Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the two strategic neighbors of Iraq, publicly oppose war. And the 22-member Arab League has unanimously rejected force against Baghdad.

Among Europeans, Britain is quietly warning about the dangers. And in Germany, which helped foot the $60-billion cost of the Persian Gulf War, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder warned Saturday against rushing into action. “Germany is no longer a country where checkbook diplomacy replaces politics,” Schroeder said. “At least not under me.”

* U.S. intelligence has limited “human assets” in Iraq available to carry out vital pre-military operations, analysts say.

* Iraq’s searing weather makes almost half the year dangerous for troops and tanks. Supplying enough water in either the southern deserts or northern mountains--the two best entry routes--would be a logistical nightmare. The preferred time to start is between October and February.

* Afghanistan is still a distraction, with Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar still unaccounted for and much of the country not under the new government’s full control.

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, once again escalating, also looms. Administration hawks argue that there is no link between the two regional hot spots, but trying to launch a war when the other conflict is raging would tax U.S. diplomatic resources and credibility, analysts say.

“If we’re going to do this properly, we should wait to make sure the Mideast peace process is calm enough to allow moderate Arab states to support it, and Al Qaeda to be brought under tighter control so we’re not subject to new terrorist attacks,” Pollack said.

“We should wait until we’ve built the kind of coalition of European, Arab and Asian states that will make an invasion politically easier and reconstruction much less costly to us, not just financially. Having them on board will be an enormous benefit, and if we don’t have them, we’ll really regret it.”

Other diplomatic hurdles are just as challenging.

An especially unpredictable variable will be the U.N. weapons inspection program. After stalling for four years, Iraq on Thursday invited the top inspector, Hans Blix, to Baghdad for technical talks. But Blix and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell rejected the offer as a smoke screen.

The real danger is down the road, if Iraq allows inspectors to return at the eleventh hour before a U.S. strike--and then delays cooperation, limiting U.S. options.

Crafting a post-Hussein government from disparate opposition groups would be another major challenge.

The State Department this week will host a summit of top exiles to sketch a postwar vision for Iraq. But some groups spend more time squabbling among themselves than opposing Hussein.

Domestic issues, including fall elections and a plummeting stock market, may further influence the administration’s timing on Iraq, analysts say.

Finally, there’s what policymakers call the “X” factor: a new crisis to divert the decision-makers.

The hurdles didn’t stop the Weekly Standard, which first beat the war drums against Iraq, from running a cover story last week heralding “The Coming War With Saddam.”

In an interview, Editor William Kristol said, “My view is that Bush has made the decision, and he’s going to implement it sooner than later ... I’m confident.”