To Bush, War May Be Ultimate Problem-Solver

It is time, a sharp-tongued administration official jokes in private, to “give war a chance.”

President Bush’s ultimatum to Iraq on Monday reflected two convictions that appear to have driven him ever since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. One is his belief that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat to the security of the United States; the other is a certainty that U.S. military action can provide a quick and decisive solution to that problem.

“Before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed,” Bush said. “The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security.... This is not a question of authority. It is a question of will.”

For Bush, six months of frustrating diplomacy at the United Nations produced no solution to the problem of Iraq. Instead, it led to a stinging political setback: his failure to win a majority vote authorizing force to disarm Hussein.

Diplomacy meant that smaller countries -- not only France, but Chile and Cameroon -- could stand in the way of the world’s only superpower.

War, in contrast, now apparently looks to the president like the ultimate problem-solving tool. Administration officials say they are not merely confident of victory in Iraq; they have high hopes that victory will come swiftly, with minimal loss of life.

Although Bush in his Monday speech said he would accept a solution short of war if Hussein and his sons left Iraq, other officials said they did not expect that to happen. Indeed, the president used most of his remarks to explain why he intends to use military force and to instruct the Iraqi people how to respond when U.S. forces arrive.

“The idea that our military power is a useful tool to solve problems is an increasingly powerful and widespread view,” said Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center think tank.

“I think Bush is gambling very heavily on a quick and decisive military victory and on a successful aftermath,” he said. “On the first point, he will almost surely win his gamble. But the second is much less clear.”

Other foreign policy scholars, including some who favor war in Iraq and some who are opposed, made much the same point: American military superiority around the globe means the United States can probably prevail in almost any armed conflict -- and that could turn into a temptation.

But winning hearts and minds may be more difficult, especially if thousands of U.S. troops find themselves running a post-Hussein Iraq.

“Perceptions of power are very significant in decision-makers’ psyches when they define interests and objectives,” said Terry Deibel, a strategist at the National War College. “If the only tool you’ve got is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” (He noted that he was speaking personally, not for the college, which is run by the Department of Defense.)

“American military strength is not in doubt, and our military means have become more effective and more efficient because of technology,” Deibel said. By contrast, “The diplomacy we just saw at the U.N. ... is the instrument of the weak.”

Deibel said he supports a war against Iraq.

“There is a real threat there, and I don’t think inspections would find the smoking gun,” he said.

John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago argued that the war is unnecessary, but described the administration’s approach to the use of power in similar terms.

“The Bush administration believes in big-stick diplomacy,” he said. “It believes ... if you use military force and do it effectively, you’ll not only solve the immediate problem the force is directed at, you’ll force other states to take notice and throw up their hands in defeat.

“The key question is not how the war will play out but how the occupation will play out,” he said. “It’s almost impossible for great powers like the United States to conquer and occupy other countries for a long time. The local population will view us as a colonial power. Local forces will rise up and challenge our rule.”

Bush aides insist they will not fall into that trap. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said U.S. forces “will stay as long as necessary and leave as soon as possible.”

But the Bush administration has not done as much visible groundwork for the postwar mission as it has for the goal of ousting Hussein. Last week, the Council on Foreign Relations, a bastion of the traditional foreign policy establishment, issued a report warning that the administration has failed to prepare the American public for the costs -- in both money and, perhaps, lives -- of administering Iraq.

“The president has done a very good job spelling out the risks of inaction in Iraq, but he hasn’t done a good job in spelling out the risks of action,” Hamilton said. “He appears to have adopted the view that there should be a major long-term role for the United States in rebuilding Iraq and transforming the Middle East.... But he has not prepared the American people for that.”

Foreign policy experts said other diplomatic missteps on the way to Monday’s ultimatum also reduced the degree of international support the U.S. can rely on, both during a war and after.

“We have mishandled the diplomacy -- if you want to call it diplomacy -- monstrously,” said Lawrence S. Eagleburger, secretary of State during the administration of Bush’s father.

“I don’t think we could have avoided most of the negative reaction we’re getting around the world,” he said. “Even if it had been handled beautifully, there was never going to be enough support to get a Security Council vote to authorize military action.... But we could have done it at lower cost.”

As a result, Eagleburger and others said, Bush’s margin for error is now reduced. If the United States wins the war quickly and easily, and handles the aftermath deftly, all will be forgiven. But if the U.S. action in Iraq runs into problems, the critics will lose no time in pouncing.

“There’s a real concern in the rest of the world that the world’s only superpower simply should not be allowed to flex its muscles this way,” said Eagleburger, who added that he supports the war.

“If, in the aftermath, we find the weapons of mass destruction that we think are there, some of the antagonism will wither on the vine,” he said. “But if things go badly in the aftermath, everybody is going to say, ‘I told you so.’

“Victory has a thousand fathers,” he said. “Defeat is an orphan. Or however that goes.”