Although hardliners in the Bush administration are devout in their desire to eliminate Saddam Hussein, Senators Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee remain deeply skeptical about the wisdom of initiating a unilateral war with Iraq.

On Monday, August 26, Vice President Dick Cheney made a bellicose speech to a group of veterans in Tennessee, asserting that the consequences of inaction with Iraq "are far greater than the risk of action." As noted in the New York Times, the tough tone came as White House advisers expressed concern about growing debate in Congress and among influential former government officials over the direction of Iraq policy.

But Reed said the choices posed by Cheney -- of either not acting or launching a military attack on Iraq -- represent a false dichotomy. Although Hussein represents a very strong threat and is presumably doing his best to develop his nation's biological and chemical weapons programs, Reed says, "The question is, how do you constrain him and restrain him? I think we still have diplomatic leverage," such as pushing for inspections of weapons sites in Iraq. "The idea that the only choice we have is between sitting back and letting him run rampant and a unilateral attack is not a real choice."

Chafee, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has cited disputes within the administration and statements by senior American military officials in questioning the extent of the threat posed by Iraq

Asked during a July 31 appearance on CNN whether the White House had made the case for "taking out" Hussein, Chafee responded, "No. And I think a lot of the witnesses are saying at this [Foreign Relations Committee] hearing that first we have to focus on the Palestinian issue and solve that, and every day it seems to get worse. So this is, I think, an area where there's going to be a shift naturally that all of the allies in the region, even those that aren't so allied with us, are saying this is where the focus should be, and I think a lot of Americans would agree with that first."

The stance of Rhode Island's two senators might offer some solace to critics of the administration's seeming march to war with Iraq. As part of a national day of action on Wednesday, August 28, the activist group MoveOn organized an online petition (www.moveon.org/nowar) opposing an American-initiated war with Iraq and planned to hand-deliver the statements to senators.

Reed echoed Chafee's statement about the need for focusing immediate attention on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying, "We can't solve the problem, but we can change the dynamic." Such efforts, combined with a push for inspections in Iraq, would strengthen coalition-building efforts, he says, adding that a US attack could actually diminish the nation's ability to fight terrorism.

Although the White House seemed to again be gearing up its rhetoric this week to prepare the nation for war, Reed, a West Point graduate and Army veteran, questions whether other motivations might be at work. Noting that the desire to eliminate Saddam Hussein has become an article of faith among conservative GOP flanks, Reed says the tough talk "might be simply to answer those right-wing proponents of an attack. Beyond that, it's hard to fathom what they're doing."

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.

Issue Date: August 30 - September 5, 2002