George Bush's War

As war with Iraq was about to commence last February, the Scene asked some of its writers to hold forth on the prospect of this pre-emptive endeavor. At the time, it was the most important issue facing the United States, and perhaps the world. Did we have a national interest in Iraq? Were there weapons of mass destruction? Was Iraq a training ground for terrorists? Could we install a workable government there?

Fourteen months later, it's fair to say that these and other questions are still top-of-mind. If anything, debate has grown even sharper.

With the partisan lines of a presidential race drawn in the sand, nuance has fled. Recent books by Bob Woodward, Ron Suskind and Richard Clarke have heightened public interest. And the ugly turn of the struggle in recent weeks into a guerilla war fought out in urban nooks and crannies has seemed to increase our national anxiety. Photographs of American flags draped over coffins have given us all reason for pause.

Last February, some Scene writers supported the war. Others were adamantly against it. This time around, the anti's are still opposed, but the pro's have grown more skeptical. We offer these views not because we think they're any more relevant than anyone else's but because we feel doing so is as legitimate a way as any to air the spectrum of viewpoints on this divisive issue. Overall, as we place our proverbial finger into the wind, we'd have to guess that we're a lot like the rest of the country: less confident, more wary, increasingly upset.

Presenting our opinions on this matter is not designed to make you change your mind one way or the other. But perhaps it will inspire some to appreciate more fully the complexity of this conflict, the mutability of opinion and how one year can seem like a lifetime.

LAST YEAR:For

NOW:For, with reservations

At this stage, only a blind Bush partisan would have absolutely no reservations about our military action in Iraq. I certainly do not align myself with those who insist that America has mired itself in a Vietnam-style "quagmire." (Let's see how things are in another five years before making that particular comparison.) But I do harbor some uneasiness. I am quite disappointed with the Bush administration's seeming reluctance to realize that the failure (thus far) to find weapons of mass destruction is something that gives even hawks like me the willies. Is our intelligence really that faulty? If so, what are we going to do about it? If, on the other hand, there really were WMDs over there at some point (a safe bet in my book), then where are they now? It would be nice if the president would just talk to Americans one evening from the Oval Office and address this issue head-on, but that's apparently too much to ask. Too bad, because silence from the White House on this issue fosters skepticism among the public at large, and I fear that the burden of proof we will have to meet when the next Saddam comes along will be simply unattainable.

This problem notwithstanding, in the purely clinical terms of election-year politics, Iraq remains a net-plus for Bush. The majority of Americans remain supportive of the war, largely because Saddam Hussein, himself a one-man weapon of mass destruction, is gone. Furthermore, a nation is free—temporarily (let's hope) chaotic in a few places perhaps—but free just the same. And other despots in the region, such as Libya's Muammar Qadhafi, are taking notice that we're not kidding around. If George W. Bush loses in November, it won't be because of the war in Iraq.

—Roger Abramson

LAST YEAR:Against, with reservations

NOW:Against, with reservations

Looking at the aftermath of World War II, when American occupation transformed two aggressive, militarist societies into stable democracies, it is easy to be seduced by America's ability to do good in the world. That temptation has produced mixed results—the rollback of the Soviet empire, the half-success in Korea, the failure in Vietnam. In the face of a regime as vile as that of Saddam Hussein, the temptation to send the tanks rolling into Iraq to spread American goodwill was very powerful indeed. But, again, we are seeing some of the limitations of our innocent notion that the Army can make other people love us.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, we were looking for some place where our powerful military would be a relevant response. Iraq never had anything much to do with our security issues, although the despicable nature of the Iraqi regime made it easy to overlook that point, especially given the national need to blow something up as catharsis for the World Trade Center.

We may yet accomplish some good for Iraq and the Arab world, but the shaky leadership to date of President Bush and his top aides hasn't helped and shows little sign of improving. I feel like too much of our policy is the product of the pursuit of political advantage mushed on by vacant hairy-chestedness. It's not exactly the second coming of the Marshall Plan.