How Bush ruined a good case for war with Iraq

George Bush has ruined a perfectly good case for war. In October 2001, before the dust had settled in Afghanistan, I proposed in this column that the United States initiate war plans in Iraq. And yet, in January 2003, I found myself marching along with thousands of other peace demonstrators in Washington D.C. What happened in one year to change my mind? Partly, it is the way President Bush has alienated allies and partners. Partly, it is the way President Bush has dismissed domestic dissent. But it's also about trust.

Trust is not faith. Trust is built on track records, and President Bush's track record over the past year has done little to inspire confidence. As my thesis advisor frequently warns me: "There isn't a policy problem in the world that can't be solved with rhetoric." Too often in the Bush White House, rhetoric is policy while real solutions go unmade — on everything from education ("Education Reform Left Behind," New York Times, February 8, 2003); to improving domestic security ("America — Still Unprepared, Still in Danger," Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force, 2002); to creating a "compassionate" America ("The Future of Compassion," Philadelphia Enquirer, December 1, 2002); to helping working Americans ("A Touch of Class," New York Times, January 21, 2003); to a range of other issues ("Empty Promises," New York Times, January 31, 2003).

The difference between pro-war and antiwar advocates is not that one group has more information than the other — pro-war and antiwar advocates are equally ill informed. They diverge at the next step. Pro-war advocates trust President Bush to make the right decision; antiwar advocates do not. To be sure, a certain amount of distrust in any democracy is healthy because it can help ensure government officials are accountable for their actions, though I'm not sure the Bush administration sees it that way.

The most important reason for my estrangement from the pro-war stance is the way President Bush has mismanaged global alliances and partnerships. On September 11, the United States experienced an outpouring of sympathy from a span of countries whose breadth of support was perhaps unparalleled in human history. But one year later, we find ourselves ostracized among nations, perceived more as a warmonger than peace-lover.

There are certain things you just cannot forgive a president. I will never forgive President Clinton for his inaction during the genocide in Rwanda. I will never forgive President Bush for wasting one of the most profound opportunities in history to unite the world behind a global effort to combat the common enemies of man: poverty, misery, disease and war itself. The Bush administration's heavy-handed approach to war has created a pointed rift with our European allies, unsettling tensions in NATO, and earned rebuke from Russia and China — not to mention, Turkey. The repercussions of this cooling of America's international relationships will be felt for generations, on issues we cannot yet foresee. Before a single shot has been fired (at least, officially), the costs of this war are rapidly exceeding the benefits.

President Bush has lost my support for war for another reason — his blithe dismissal of legitimate uncertainties and misgivings. After the protests in New York and around the world on February 15, President Bush said: "Size of protest — it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group." Not really. The president can disagree with the ever-increasing numbers of American protestors, but he has an obligation to take them seriously, engage them and address their concerns.

Until last week, the president had not even publicly discussed the issue of what would happen after Saddam is gone. Last week, President Bush said, "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." Given our less-than-sufficient support for Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, this statement is less-than-convincing. And while the speech was long overdue, it did not answer the fundamental questions of what will be the extent of U.S. involvement and commitment in a post-Saddam Iraq, how remaining in Iraq "as long as necessary" will affect regional and global politics, and how it will affect Americans here at home. President Bush's habit of dismissing crucial questions is no way to build support for war.

To be fair, there are unanswered questions on both sides. Pro-war advocates have no good response to the question: What makes Iraq so different from other hostile countries equipped with "weapons of mass destruction?" And antiwar activists have no good response to the question: How can we be sure Saddam will not sell "weapons of mass destruction" to terrorists, who will use them against us? A lot of people decide their position based on which of these uncertainties they are willing to live with.

But given the Bush Administration's poor job at inspiring trust, its uncanny ability to chill world opinion, and its failure to address the critical questions about postwar Iraq, I do not feel justified supporting war. And looking back on my pro-war column written one month after September 11, my current antiwar position seems entirely the result of a year of missteps by the Bush administration.