The Hindu Business Line : Senior Bush on Iraq

AS a journalistic duty, I return to my piece "Father vs son" published in this column on Wednesday as I have since been able to obtain the transcript of the speech of the former President Mr George Bush commenting on US-Iraq stand-off. Even though the senior Bush spoke as early as on February 26 at the Tufts University in the US, his speech did not, to my best knowledge, enjoy wide coverage in the media in the US and elsewhere. A write-up appeared on Timesonline too 14 days later, only to disappear soon after without any explanation. Since I chanced upon it on a reputed Website, I proceeded to draw the inference of a rift between the father and the son, and shared it with the readers.

From the speech it is clear that the senior Bush did not mince words on the necessity for the UN mandate for any military action. He was categorical in stating: "It would be much better to act with as much international support as possible... the Madrid (peace) conference (following the 1991 Gulf War) would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate... if the United States had gone ahead on its own, had gone into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces had surrendered and agreed to disarm. The coalition would have instantly shattered. And the political capital that we had gained as a result of our principle...would have been lost. We would have lost all support from our coalition, with the possible exception of England...(and) from the smaller nations in the United Nations as well."

On the justification for going to war this time, the senior Bush seems not very convinced. These are his words again: "The difference between 1991 and today is that the objective was clearer, in a way, back when I was President. You could see the occupying forces. You could get the reports of the brutality of the Iraqi soldiers to the Kuwaiti women, and to the torture of the young men. You could see that the forces, in my view, were determined to go even further south to try to take over — that was my view — to take over Saudi Arabia. Today it is less clear.

"The violations of the UN resolutions by Saddam Hussein are clear. But, the question is how much does he have (in the form of) weapons of mass destruction? That could be debated. But, I think, most people conclude that he has not done what he was called on to do, to fully disarm. So, it is a little fuzzier today." Mark the reservation about the evidence on weapons of mass destruction.

On the question of Iraq's links with Al Qaeda too, he is guarded: "I am not saying that this is a big conspiracy between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein". Only in respect of differences with France and Germany, he just refers to them and leaves it at that, whereas the Web version talked of his wanting the junior Bush not to "bear any grudge" but to reach out to them.

On the whole, I think, the senior Bush is not as dogmatic as his son about the strength of the case for war on Iraq. His speech deserved greater prominence than it has received.

B.S. Raghavan

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Policy crisis in energy

Only proactive approach will work in farm sector

Reassessing the Pakistani threat

Senior Bush on Iraq

Cyberspace rebellion

And quiet flows the river project

Rollback legacy

Cash to the poor