Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Sept. 12, 2002 / 6 Tishrei, 5763

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

No Mirror for Europe; US is a picture of unity | Much of the discussion of America's confrontation with Iraq has focused on domestic opposition to a war. The picture we get is of a political stage severely divided.

There is indeed tension inside the Bush administration: Colin Powell, secretary of state, prefers diplomacy to escalation. But Republican and Democratic opposition is relatively muted.

The real story about America is the consensus within US leadership on the matter of toppling Saddam Hussein.

This unity becomes clear when we consider the debate in the run-up to the Gulf War. Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the US deployed thousands of troops to scare Mr Hussein into retreat. But as the prospect of military action increased, any number of lawmakers mobilised in opposition, either to call for Congressional approval or to block action outright. The tone and content of their arguments were more sceptical or confrontational than those of arguments heard today.

On the Republican side, a number of leaders had hesitations about the project. As Bob Woodward recalls in his book The Commanders, both Senator Robert Dole and Richard Lugar fought for explicit congressional approval, with Senator Lugar telling President George Bush it was better to determine early whether Congress was behind him. From within the administration, then, as now, Mr Powell called for caution.

On the Democratic side, the opposition was public and outright. Richard Gephardt, then House majority leader, repeatedly challenged the very notion of military action, even going so far as to threaten blocking the president's funding for the war.

Nor was Mr Gephardt alone. Fifty-three House Democrats and Tom Harkin, a Democrat senator from Iowa, moved one step further: they went to court to ask for an injunction to stop the president from initiating an attack on Iraq. Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, then co-chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee, voiced his "uncertainty" about an anti-Iraq mission; he later voted "No" in the decisive vote to authorise offensive action, along with Senators Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn and Joseph Biden, all leading Democrats. Only 52 senators supported authorisation.

In the House, meanwhile, 183 members of Congress voted to deny authorisation - a minority but a sizeable one. This split reflected public opinion - at certain moments, at least: a USA Today poll of November 1990 showed only 51 per cent of respondents supported Mr Bush's handling of the Iraqi challenge.

Things look a little different today: the president enjoys stronger support from the public and objections tend to be about detail rather than overall thrust. A New York Times poll at the weekend showed 68 per cent of Americans supported Mr Bush on Iraq.

On the Democratic side, there has been much sympathy for the notion that aggression may be necessary, particularly from prominent Democrats. Thus, for example, the same Mr Gephardt who led the opposition last time around is today a vocal advocate.

Just last month, even before it became clear that the White House would seek congressional approval of military action, Mr Gephardt, now House minority leader, said: "President Bush was right Saturday to say we are fighting a new war and will have to be ready to strike when necessary." A few months ago Mr Gephardt laid out his support in a long speech at the Wilson Centre, saying, "I share President Bush's resolve to confront head-on the menace".

Of course, many Democrats have been silent on the matter, spending their stage time assailing the president on the economy. But this should be interpreted in the context of the forthcoming congressional elections. It tells us one of two things. The first is that the Democrats think that they can win by differentiating themselves on the economy and lose by differentiating themselves on the war. The second is that they support the showdown but do not want to highlight that support, since that would also help Republicans.

Among Republicans, to be sure, there are the dissenters: Gen Powell; Dick Armey, House Majority leader; and Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser. But it is important to note, that, excepting Gen Powell, these critics are not big "players". Mr Armey probably feels free to express his opinion because he knows it does not matter much: he will retire this winter. Gen Scowcroft's power base exists - he heads the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board - but it is not a mighty one.

So both houses of Congress are likely to vote more heavily in support of presidential authority than they did in 1991.

This should not be surprising. For one thing, Democrats remember what a political loser opposition to the Gulf war turned out to be. Their prognostications of thousands of US casualties proved wrong. The two important members of the party who broke early from the pack and backed the administration in launching Desert Storm - Senator Al Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman - were rewarded with the chance to run for president and vice-president six years later.

The real motive, though, behind Democratic support, and public support generally, is the recognition that this war must be fought if necessary. The lesson that US leaders have taken from September 11 is that it is time to stop trouble that emanates from the Middle East. Washington views al-Qaeda-type terror and a nuclear or chemical weapons attack from Iraq in the same class: as threats that must be smothered.

Europe is divided over this proposition and may seek a mirror of its divisions in the US. But an accurate review of America's leadership reveals a picture of striking unity.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


08/14/02: Keeping your financial eggs at home
07/24/02: New Democrats' unaffordable luxury
06/26/02: The evolution of eminent domain is the story of the lasting power of Supreme Court decisions to alter the American cultural fabric
06/20/02: The distinction between known risk and uncertainty: What was lost in the Martha Stewart flap
06/11/02: Europe, long waiting for a chance to assert itself as independent from the US on the world stage, is clueless to terror's threat
06/04/02: A Cold Warrior's lessons for the Middle East
05/21/02: Geography does matter when it comes to development, but aid must nonetheless be linked to good governance
05/14/02: The increasing number of new claims is hurting innocent companies and making a mockery of the Common Law system
05/09/02: Aid, development and guilt in our times of terror
04/30/02: Wine lovers may at last be able to stray across state borders. The Internet is coming to the aide of free trade
04/23/02: Taxation by way of Madison Avenue
04/17/02: Special relationships and free trade do not mix
04/08/02: Is terror the flip side of globalization?
03/20/02 Bush gives aid but seeks results
03/13/02 The Danger in policy by numbers
02/26/02: States' smokescreen for tax hypocrisy
02/20/02: Echoes of leadership against a global threat
02/13/02: Jackson Vanik May be a Useful Analogy When Thinking About the Middle East
02/07/02: Budgeting for victory: Requiem for a peace dividend
02/05/02: The detectives of 1930s pulp fiction had a nose for clients bearing gifts. Sadly, those consulted by Enron did not
01/22/02: Allow all American children a decent chance
01/15/02: Do not disturb the profit-sharing revolution
01/09/02: It is dangerous to elevate a currency as a political emblem if the need for other economic reforms is obscured
01/03/02: There is only one way for a free thinker to bring up children
12/20/01: Why America's economy always bounces back
12/18/01: When it comes to taxes, Washington lawmakers can learn a thing or two from The Honeymooners
12/13/01: Bush opens a new era
12/12/01: A flamboyant reversal for the Democratic party
12/06/01: Threat of an oil embargo on the U.S. is a bluff
11/29/01: Which is more important--the war or diplomatic comity?
11/20/01: Unbalanced by a wealth of oil and diamonds
10/17/01: Afghanistan Needs a General MacArthur
09/27/01: The US has gained an understanding of the costs of war for which its European allies have hitherto wished in vain
09/13/01: War against terrorism will rise from the ashes
08/15/01: Geography is no excuse for the state's economic stagnation. Its policymakers should take a leaf from Ireland's book
08/07/01: Teamsters may pay a heavy price for winning its batle in Congress
07/25/01: Towards a patent-free nirvana?
07/17/01: History proves the lasting value of tax cuts
07/10/01: Stem cell research has awakened a bitter debate in Washington but voters care more about other electoral issues
07/03/01: America foots the bill for Europe's largesse
06/26/01: America the litigious, land of the lawyer's fee
06/20/01: Five reasons for gloom about global growth 06/18/01: Show pity for Alice in Tax Wonderland
06/13/01: America must take a French lesson in trade
06/11/01: Time to dream the impossible dream for Iraq
06/07/01: Whatever happened to simple?
06/04/01: When the relationship between companies becomes as close as a marriage, the eventual break-up is often very painful
06/01/01: Loving and hating the Bush tax bill
05/30/01: Will Grisham soon be unemployed? In America's courts these days, there's no room left over for legal fiction
05/22/01: Republicans sample the rhetoric of confidence
05/16/01: Boeing has been promised $60m to site its headquarters in Illinois. The deal looks a poor one for taxpayers
05/14/01: Adam Smith in love
05/09/01: Those rotten Russian capitalists
05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly
05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again.
04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs
04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top
04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers
04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door
03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2001, Financial Times