At War: On Iraq, Right Reason.(international support for, national political views on possible military action against Iraq )

Give credit where it's due: Colin Powell had a point about going to the U.N. on the Iraq question. When President Bush did so, it helped change the dynamics of the debate, both domestically and internationally. But a few distinctions are in order. The U.S. should not make it its business to enforce U.N. resolutions willy-nilly. We are challenging the U.N. to live up to its resolutions only because they happen to align with important U.S. national-security interests. Bush's speech also packed a threat (one that, if the State Department had its way, would never be made): that the U.N. can go along or be left behind as the U.S. takes action in Iraq without it. The president's "unilateralism" -- or leadership, to use a better term for it -- is creating a practical multilateralism in accord with American interests.

So it is that the tenor of French opposition to the intervention has changed, as Paris realizes it would be better not to be left out of the post-Saddam order, especially when it comes to its oil concessions in Iraq. Russia may play ball for similar reasons. We will leave it to the shrinks to determine why American liberals consider it a mark of morality in foreign policy when that policy coincides with Russian and French strategies that are themselves arrived at for the crassest of reasons. In general, making "international opinion" the benchmark for right and wrong is a mistake, since so much of it is driven by fear, self-interest, and greed. The power of fear, for instance, is evident in Saudi Arabia's renewed interest in offering the U.S. use of its bases, as the Saudis see the U.S. shifting its friendship to the relatively benign Gulf state of Qatar (an important lesson as we begin to deal with the effects of Saudi radical evangelism: The House of Saud does respond to pressure).

Unfortunately, the attitude of many Democrats seems to be "international opinion" right or wrong. Al Gore implicitly blames the United States for the irresponsible attacks of Gerhard Schroeder on American policy. Gore is apparently not outraged by Schroeder's unilateralism -- nakedly motivated by election politics -- which says that Germany will oppose even U.N.-sanctioned action against Iraq. No: German obstructionism is America's fault. This line of argument risks returning a post-Vietnam, Blame America First taint to Democratic foreign policy, which Bill Clinton had largely effaced. A replay would be bad for the Democrats, and for the country.

Bush has not, as Gore charges, squandered the international consensus that existed after September 11. That consensus arose spontaneously in the rush of sympathy after the attacks, and would inevitably fade. Making U.S. foreign policy dependent on such uniform support would be a prescription for paralysis, since only the status quo can typically command such unanimity. And the present status quo should be unacceptable. Terrorism emanates from the Middle East for a reason: The style of politics and religion promoted by the regimes there, and the work of their security services, all lend support to anti-U.S. terrorism. Breaking up the axis of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia is a goal central to the war on terrorism.

To insist, as Gore does, that the U.S. not do anything else until we hunt down and kill bin Laden -- a goal that, for all we know, may already be accomplished -- is to reduce American policy to a manhunt, perhaps one of several years' duration. Gore suggests that Bush is going after Saddam because it's easier than eliminating al-Qaeda -- as though the ability to achieve an objective were an argument against doing so. Besides which, an invasion of Iraq is the first step toward an extremely difficult long-term goal: transforming the geopolitical ...