Posted on: Wednesday, September 25, 2002

EDITORIAL
Blair makes convincing case for disarmament

The dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs released yesterday by the British government makes a convincing case for why the world should worry about Saddam Hussein.

The dossier, Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament yesterday, "concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability."

But we knew that. Where Blair falls short, in the same way that President Bush has, is in advancing a compelling argument for "Why now?"

Still, for all that's been made of their solidarity, there's an important difference between Blair and Bush on Iraq. Bush isn't interested in inspections, asserting in advance they won't work. His policy instead is "regime change" in Iraq, as justified by his new (and rather frightening) military doctrine of "pre-emption."

Blair, however, demands Iraqi disarmament. "Our case is simply this," he said: "not that we take military action, come what may, but that the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament, as the U.N. has stipulated, is overwhelming."

This difference between Blair and Bush is not unimportant or subtle. As the debate in Parliament showed, even Blair's position is unpopular in Britain and denounced in much of Europe.

Before he gets too far out in front of the rest of the world, Bush should make a serious attempt at "coercive inspections" — inspections anytime, anyplace backed by the credible threat of force — which, as Saddam agreed in 1991, must lead to dismantling and disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.

Neither Bush nor Blair has made a case for war as first resort.