EDITORIAL
Powell's case strong but war is last resort

After Secretary of State Colin Powell's 90-minute presentation to the U.N. Security Council yesterday, we'd guess that those whose opinions on whether to use force against Iraq were already firm are even more convinced, but that few doubters were converted.

If one can accept the veracity of the evidence presented, it does not necessarily translate into war, now.

The effectiveness of Powell's arguments depended on exactly what it was you expected him to prove:

• If you were looking for a "smoking gun," you likely were disappointed. Indeed, the White House had advised there would be none. But there was "plenty of smoke," as one observer put it — aerial photos and intercepted conversations.
• If you were looking for proof that Iraq is in material breach of Security Council Resolution 1441, your interpretation of Powell's presentation may be more complicated. Obviously Saddam has not disarmed, as the resolution demands, but it's far from clear precisely what facilities or weapons remain to be disclosed and destroyed.
• The most difficult test for Powell's evidence — no matter how convincing it was in itself — is whether it showed a clear case for imminent invasion of Iraq. Beyond the facts that the weather is optimal and the invasion force is ready, is there a compelling need for haste? Could a continued inspection regime in time induce Saddam to comply without the need for war? By his unprecedented disclosure of intelligence data, it's clear Powell sought to resolve these questions squarely.

Among permanent Security Council members, the Russians and Chinese said Powell had made a case not for immediate invasion but for continued inspections. France and Germany went further, calling for strengthening the inspections regime that was already toughened up in November.

But in Congress, Powell seemed to have stirred growing doubt that the inspection process could work, and a growing conviction that Saddam's time was running out.

For our part, Powell's presentation informed us of little that we didn't already accept. Certainly Iraq is ruled by an evil regime, but we remain unconvinced that the threat to the region and the United States will be much different a year from now than it was a year ago, barring war.

This much seems clear: The "doves" on the Security Council have voted themselves, with their unanimous resolution demanding that Iraq disarm, into a moral dilemma. The longer Saddam resists his obligation to disarm, the more obvious it will appear that the Security Council is dithering itself into irrelevance.

We see no way around this choice: Either Saddam complies, or the Security Council must unite to force his compliance. Again, we are not convinced that there is any need in hurrying this process.

There are reports France has been discreetly readying its military for possible engagement in the Middle East; such reports obviously turn up the heat under Saddam.

As President Bush has repeatedly said, war must be a last resort. If time can disarm Iraq without war, that's the preferred path.