Having Doubts

E.J. Dionne is confused, as should we all be. After all that Bush has said and done, a major question remains unanswered: which war is it that he wants to fight?

But Bush still has a problem that goes beyond style: We don't know if this war is primarily about (1) taking weapons of mass destruction out of Saddam's Hussein's hands, or (2) removing Hussein from power, or (3) bringing democracy to Iraq and revolutionizing the politics of the Middle East.

Supporters of war argue that all three goals are compatible. In principle, they are. But because the administration has gone back and forth about which of these goals matters most and how they fit together, its policy has been open to easy challenge.

In a column next door, David Ignatius is wondering if General Wesley Clark might not know a thing or two about wars. Clark is not ideologically opposed to war with Iraq; his doubts are more focused on the pragmatic:

Clark cites three tests that the administration must meet before going to war. "First, are you sure you won't destroy the international institutions you say you are supporting, and thereby undermine the war against terror? Second, can you win the war quickly and smoothly, avoiding the collateral damage that would make you lose while winning? And third, in the aftermath, can you prevent the growth of al Qaeda and control the weapons of mass destruction that may be hidden?"

If the Bush administration can answer "yes" to all three, then the Iraq war will succeed, Clark says. But he isn't convinced.

It seems to me that if more people were asking these kinds of questions, we might just be a little bit further away from going to war.