Beating drums for war has deep roots

WASHINGTON -- After World War II, Republicans seeking to end long years of political frustration accused Franklin Roosevelt of deliberately and maliciously ignoring intelligence that clearly revealed Japan's plans to attack the U.S. Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. It was, the critics alleged, the president's way of dragging a reluctant nation into the war after winning a third term in the White House on the promise he would never do so.
Similar allegations were made following the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that brought the nation full force into the Vietnamese civil war. Lyndon Johnson, critics charged, had deliberately magnified a minor incident, if it occurred at all, to carry out policies based on a specious domino theory for Southeast Asia propounded by experts in both political parties. The charges helped fuel a growing and sometimes violent antiwar movement that not only dislodged the president and ultimately helped tarnish his successor but also gave sustenance to the North Vietnamese and cost more lives by prolonging their stubborn refusal to negotiate an end.
Spurious reason
One can even go back to World War I, when Woodrow Wilson won a second term in 1916 by promising never to get involved in the war then raging in Europe. But he reneged on the pledge, using what critics called a spurious reason, the sinking by a German U-boast of the passenger ship Lusitania with a large number of Americans aboard. There was even some evidence that the ship also was carrying munitions and, therefore, was a legitimate target. The allegations worked and Americans began a long period of voting for Republicans.
The one immutable fact is that history always repeats itself, and that is exactly what is happening as the debate grows over reasons used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush now finds himself under attack by Democrats who allege that he and his minions deliberately used faulty information about Iraq's nuclear and biological capabilities to conduct a pre-emptive strike for reasons that had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. The attacks have become increasingly shrill as Democrats see great political advantage stemming from surveys showing the president's approval rating dropping precipitously over Iraq.
Terrorists in Iraq, indeed the world over, can only be encouraged by the tenor of the debate over the war. Once again, Americans seem to be as self-destructive as if they had strapped explosives around their middles. That encouragement means further delay in extrication from a bad situation and that, of course, will result in more loss of life -- not only in Iraq, but elsewhere in the tinderbox Middle East, where the bombings in Jordan are the latest example.
That isn't to say that we should not argue the merits of what now seems to be a completely ill-advised expedition brought on by faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction. But before they bring accusations of malfeasance to the table, Democrats should examine their own record. Bill Clinton and most of his experts held the same beliefs about the WMD threat. As he has done lately, Bush is well within his rights to cry foul and cite the general support by any number of Democrats of the congressional resolution sanctioning the invasion.
Containment policy
Were their other ways of containing Saddam short of invasion even if there was a sound belief that he had these weapons at his disposal? Probably, despite the fact he had defied U.N. resolution after resolution for full disclosure. The debate should focus on those ways and a number of other issues about the entire process.
The conduct of the pacification effort and failure to anticipate the need for massive troop support for reconstruction are fair game for criticism. But it is unfair and irresponsible to accuse Bush of deliberately and knowingly distorting that threat for personal political gain at the expense of American lives, just as it was to level similar charges against Wilson, Roosevelt and Johnson. That is true particularly when those making the accusations are guilty of the same misjudgment. Under those circumstances, the allegations are disingenuous.
X Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.