War Without Evidence

The Vietnam Syndrome is not dead. Certainly the United States is no longer gun-shy — the Gulf War proved that — but a different Vietnam Syndrome not only lives but seems to be thriving: the willingness of Washington to exaggerate the threat. This is happening now with Iraq.

Not that Iraq is no threat. Under Saddam Hussein, it has twice invaded neighbors — Iran and Kuwait — and used chemical weapons against both foreign and domestic enemies. It also has biological weapons and is trying to secure nuclear weapons. If it gets the latter, the entire balance of power in the Middle East will be changed — and for the worse.

But there is no — that's no — evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Intelligence suggests, in fact, that Iraq is five or so years away from either securing or developing a bomb. The nuclear threat is not an imminent one, and it is not one, in any case, directed at the United States. We are a world away and have ample means to retaliate. Iraq would cease to exist.

So what explains the Chicken Little remarks made by Bush administration spokesmen on the Sunday TV shows? In the formulation of Vice President Cheney, Iraq somehow morphed into the old Soviet Union: "If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbors those aspirations, then I think the United States is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force." You bet.

But what is the evidence that Iraq is preparing to launch an attack on the United States? There is none. And just how would Iraq accomplish such a thing? With its Al-Hussein missiles, which have a range of about 390 miles? With its Al-Samoud missiles, which have a range of about 90 miles? Or maybe in a suitcase brought in by terrorists? Some suitcase that would be.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, also reading from the administration's playbook, echoed Cheney on CNN. "I don't think anyone wants to wait for the 100 percent surety that [Saddam Hussein] has a weapon of mass destruction that can reach the United States," she said. Once again: You bet. But again, what's the proof (1) that Saddam has such a weapon, (2) that he has the means to deliver it, and (3) that suicide of this sort is his intention?

I have always thought there is a plausible case for going to war against Iraq. But the more I hear from the administration — the more it exaggerates its case and turns a potential threat against the region into an imminent one against Peoria, Ill. — the more I have to wonder if such a case exists. From everything I know, Cheney and Rice are taking a worst-case scenario further than the facts warrant.

I concede that I don't know everything — and no one can be certain about what goes on in Iraq. But I can find no one with any expertise who thinks Iraq has an imminent nuclear capability. Similarly, I can find no one who thinks Iraq is directly linked to al Qaeda and thus to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. If this is wrong, then the Bush administration ought to come right out and say so — and offer proof.

Back to the Vietnam Syndrome. The old one is gone. The dire predictions that preceded the Gulf War or the one in Afghanistan were not proved true. The Arab street did not erupt. But just as we were once hobbled by a reluctance to use force, the easy wars of the recent past have given us a certain cockiness.

War is still a messy business, though, and almost anything can happen. It's conceivable we could have a so-called regime change in Iraq — and in Jordan and Saudi Arabia, moderate regimes basically friendly with the United States, as well. If the new rulers are Jeffersonian democrats, terrific. But if they are religious fundamentalists, then we only will have traded one headache for another — and long lines at the gas station to boot.

Iraq must be dealt with. But the trap must be closed methodically. Bring back the arms inspectors. Vacuum the country. If Saddam agrees, fine. If he doesn't, then war becomes his choice — and the world will understand.

But by its warnings without evidence, by its penchant for unilateralism and by its initial disregard for Congress, the Bush administration is sowing seeds of doubt. The palpable urgency of this administration to go to war is, at this moment, just downright inexplicable. It either is failing to make its case or, worse, has no case to make. I'm ready for war — but just tell me again why.