Posted on: Tuesday, March 12, 2002

EDITORIAL
Talking with Iraqis: Is there any point?

Like ships passing in the night, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan had an ambivalent meeting last week with Iraq's foreign minister as Vice President Dick Cheney prepared for his mission to convince Arab leaders of the need to support a U.S.-led war to overthrow Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

In a form of rope-a-dope eerily reminiscent of that of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Saddam had suddenly agreed to talks in an obvious attempt to vent some of the war fever in Washington.

Even if President Bush has given up any hope of negotiating a peaceful outcome with Saddam, our European allies still cling to the notion that, as the Clintonians tried with North Korea, Iraq can be cajoled, persuaded or bought out of its surreptitious weapons of mass destruction programs.

The word in Washington, however, is that U.S. policy demands the overthrow of Saddam. The only remaining questions are how and when.

Cheney has a ticklish mission ahead of him. Arab leaders are most reluctant to back an attack on a fellow Muslim even as their populations are enraged by Israeli militancy against Palestinians with at least tacit American support.

It's commonly thought that Arab leaders would be happy to see Saddam gone, if only they could do it without risking their own necks.

A more important if more subtle question is raised by the European role in the coming war with Iraq. Even as Europeans are reluctant to sign on for the war, American hawks are leaning toward fighting without the need for awkward collegiality with NATO commanders. Some observers believe the question of European participation will be important in shaping trans-Atlantic relations in the 21st century.

The mood in Washington is that if the U.S. could conquer Afghanistan without much help, it can single-handedly mold the post-war-on-terrorism world to its liking. Such is the hallmark of hubris.