No Case for Going In Alone

President Bush on Thursday went before the world community in his campaign against Iraq. His speech to the U.N. General Assembly included no startling revelations, but it effectively cataloged Saddam Hussein’s decade-long defiance of demands that Iraq show it has destroyed its most dangerous weapons. Bush’s recital of Hussein’s torture of his people, use of gas against Iran and Iraqi Kurds and firing of missiles at Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain was chilling. But he was not persuasive about the urgency to get rid of Hussein now and by any means.

After weeks of Vice President Dick Cheney and Bush aides’ beating the war drums, the president’s remarks may have represented more a courtesy in response to his critics than a commitment to getting U.N. Security Council approval for military action. Still, the best course remains U.N. inspectors returning to Iraq with the ability to go anywhere at any time in the search for weapons Baghdad promised to give up more than a decade ago.

Bush promised that Washington would work with the U.N. on a new demand to present to Iraq. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell is expected to consult with other Security Council members on a deadline for the readmission of inspectors Iraq has barred since 1998. The sooner that deadline, the better.

The Security Council will have to decide what to do if Iraq continues its defiance, or if it admits inspectors but then hinders their activities. Bush properly challenged the U.N. to show its deliberations are “more than talk” and its resolutions “more than wishes.” The president raised the specter of the League of Nations, predecessor of the United Nations, which was impotent when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The League was crippled from its start by the refusal of the United States to join.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan agreed that the Security Council “must face its responsibilities” if Iraq’s defiance continues. But Annan also was blunt in warning Washington against playing the lone cowboy, saying this would undercut the international rule of law and cause upheaval in the Middle East.

Speaking after Annan, Bush kept his options open, declaring that if Security Council resolutions are not enforced, “action will be unavoidable.”

Washington’s rhetoric has alarmed potential allies. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has repeatedly warned against war in Iraq. Three of the five permanent members of the Security Council--France, Russia and China--also have distanced themselves from the Bush administration on the issue. They agree that Iraq is dangerous, that it has refused to destroy its stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that it has not given up on developing nuclear weapons.

But demanding compliance with U.N. resolutions is different from insisting on a “regime change.” There is legitimate concern for the precedent that toppling Hussein would set. Nuclear-armed India already has fought three wars with Pakistan, which now also has nuclear weapons. New Delhi could try to remove a Pakistani government if it sponsored terrorists attacking India. China considers Taiwan a renegade province and could use the island’s purchase of U.S. weapons as a pretext for invasion.

As long as the president warns that the United States may need to intervene alone, Congress must hold hearings at which the Bush administration can present its case for action to the American people. Republicans are pushing for a vote on an invasion and removal of Hussein before the November elections, believing they will benefit from any votes by Democrats against military action.

But political point-scoring can’t get in the way of answers Americans need. How many U.S. troops would be involved if Washington fails to get U.N. support and goes it alone? How long would soldiers need to occupy Iraq while a new government takes shape? How would all of this affect the war on terror?

Last week’s attempted assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and continued battles between warlords in Afghanistan demonstrate how much more needs to be done to rebuild that country. Al Qaeda members are reported to be in 95 countries and have access to money that lets them plot more devastation.

The Iraqi government has earned its pariah status. The United Nations will have to determine how to enforce its 16 resolutions, from 1990 to 1998, demanding that Iraq destroy weapons, free prisoners of war and supply medicine to its people. Setting a deadline to admit weapons inspectors should be easy; that’s the first step. The Bush administration should keep working closely with the United Nations; getting its support would lend legitimacy to the argument that military force against Iraq is necessary.