Safire Goes "Tilt"

I missed William Safire's Op-Ed piece yesterday. But even a day late, it deserves mention.

Playing off Philip Roth's "Plot Against America" (which is well worth reading, by the way) Safire "imagines" what the future would have been like if Bush had not had the "courage" to invade Iraq. Suffice it to say, it is a nutso vision, reminiscent of nothing so much as the visions of the "domino theorists" regarding what would happen if we "lost" Vietnam: Saddam and his al Queda henchmen take over the world only to be thwarted, finally, when:

a Wilsonian Democrat bursts upon the political scene . . . [,] wins the Iowa caucuses on the slogan "Send Our Boys Abroad," conducts a campaign inspiring us to extend freedom throughout the world, and routs the G.O.P.'s equivocating wimp in the White House. As president-elect, he emulates F.D.R. in wartime by appointing Republicans Rumsfeld to State and Wolfowitz to Defense, overthrows Saddam, wins the terror war - and the Plot Against America, Part II, is foiled

Oh my.

Does Safire really mean to suggest that invading Iraq was as important to America's future as fighting Hitler -- which, by the way, we didn't do until we had been actually attacked by Hilter's ally and Hitler himself had declared war on us? If so, the very idea is laughable. And, does he really mean to suggest that the international efforts to "contain" Saddam were as inept, unsuccessful and dangerous as the British and French efforts to "contain" Hitler? Britain and France turned over to Hitler one country after another. By contrast, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, we drove him out. If we had not done that, Safire's comparison with WWII might not be so far-fetched. But we did. And then we followed this up with UN sanctions, no-fly zones, weapons inspections, etc. Where was the "appeasement" in all of that? Sure, the sanctions and inspections were not perfect; i.e. they did not result in "regime change" and the corruption of the "oil for food" program allowed Saddam and his cronies to amass unimaginable personal fortunes. But, as has now become crystal clear, post-Gulf War diplomatic efforts surely did "contain" Saddam and eliminate him as a meaningful threat even to his neighbors, to say nothing of the United States. Had we pursued a similar course vis-a-vis Germany and Japan in, say, 1936, Hitler might well have ended up as just another petty dictator much like Saddam -- and World War II might well have been avoided. Although, if Bush had been President, we might well have attacked Germany anyway.

Let me suggest another, far more plausible outcome to a decision not to invade Iraq. Bush says to Rummy and Wolfy, "Are you nuts?! As much as I despise Saddam (for both family and geopolitical reasons), two wars (in Afghanistan and against al Queda) are quite enough for now, thank you. Sure he's a bad man, and sure, he hates America (not to mention my family), and sure he wants to get WMDs. But, there's not really all that much evidence that he has WMDs, and even less that he could use them against the United States even he has. The threat is there, of course, but it is not imminent. So, for the moment, I want to do everything I can short of war to keep the international pressure on Saddam but focus our primary efforts on capturing or killing bin Laden, drying up al Queda's sources of support, and winning the war in Afghanistan. You all know I am not a big fan of nation-building. It's just too hard to do. But we got forced into an invasion of Afghanistan and that's where I want to try to set up a functioning democracy; a democracy that will serve both as a model for other Arab nations and a counterweight to both Iran and Iraq. I don't want to try to take on yet another country at the same time. Also, I want to do something real to remove some of the causes of Arab antipathy toward the United States -- something like genuinely supporting the right of Palestinians to their own State. If we go off inavding another Arab country we will inevitably dissipate our credibility and our resources, take our eye off the two really important balls -- Afghanistan and al Queda -- and further alienate the Arab world as well as our friends."

So, the invasion of Iraq is put on the back burner, and instead, the Bush Administration pursues a four-prong foreign policy, all pursued through international coalitions that include Arab states: intensify the diplomatic and economic pressures on, and international isolation of Saddam; win the war against the Taliban and bulid a working democracy in Afghanistan; hunt down al Queda leaders and eliminate their sources of support; and work as diligently to support the Palestinians' aspirations for a State as we have (and will continue) to support the Israelis'.

Fast forward to 2004: bin Laden has been captured and is awaiting trial in New York. What is left of Al Queda is everywhere on the run and increasingly seen as anachronistic, even in the Arab world. Saddam is still in power, but is obviously no threat to anyone but his own citizens. The Israelis have given up any claim to the West Bank in return for Palestinian abandonment of their "right of return," and all that now stands in the way of a lasting peace is some agreement on how to divide control over the Temple Mount. Suicide bombings have all but ceased, as have Israeli military incursions into the areas comprising the future Palestinian State. Sporadic fighting continues in Afghanistan, but the warlords have been brought to heel, and the massive infusions of Western aid have resulted in a nascent economic boom based on something other than opium. NATO has never been stronger, more cohesive or more effective. Anti-Americanism in the Arab world has dropped markedly; indeed, the obviously sincerity of Western efforts to establish democracy in Afghanistan, together with the American efforts on behalf of the Palestinians, have recently led to pro-American demonstrations in Tehran and Damascus. Wolfowitz is teaching strategic studies at Bob Jones University; Rumslfeld is still Sec Def but is playing second fiddle to Powell on foreign policy; and, Bush wins re-election in the biggest margin since Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater.

Fast forward to 2008: Afghanistan is democratic and propserous. Sadam was assassinated by his own security forces and has been replaced by a general, who, while no liberal, is committed to returning his country to propsperity and the community of nations. The power of the mullahs in Iran has declined precipitously, and both Iran and North Korea have abandoned its nuclear weapons program. Israel and the fledgling State of Palestine are at a tense but, it seems, lasting peace. The approval rating for the United States is well above 50% even in the Arab world and approaches post-world war II levels in Europe and Asia. And, Colin Powell, who is widely credited with being the architect of Bush's "tough love" foreign polcy wins the 2008 election with a majority approaching that of Bush in 2008.

Yes, of course, this too is a pipe dream. But it is a heck of a lot more realistic than Mr. Safire's vision.

Please, Bill: Stick to "On Language". It's what you are actually good at.