Isolated Bush in a divided world

This was not the subdued Bush who at his news conference two weeks ago went out of his way to avoid appearing to be in a rush to go to war as he tried to build support for a second resolution at the Security Council.

With the diplomatic phase over, this was a president far more direct in his language and assertive in defending the right to go to war against a country that, however dangerous, has not attacked US.

‘‘Instead of drifting along toward tragedy,’’ he said, ‘‘we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.’’

Unprecedented as launching a pre-emptive attack might be, it fits comfortably into Bush’s post-Sept. 11 construct of national security. Terrorism has left an indelible mark on his presidency and on the country and, he argued, justifies the dramatic steps he is about to undertake unless Iraqi President Saddam Hussein unexpectedly gives up power voluntarily in the next two days.

While he cited previous UN resolutions to justify going to war, including two approved before the Persian Gulf War of 1991 and Resolution 1441, unanimously approved by the Security Council in November, he took as his clearest authority his constitutional oath to defend the United States.

‘‘The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security,’’ he said. ‘‘That duty falls to me, as commander in chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.’’ Those kinds of arguments have not won him the support of other countries, as the administration’s and Britain’s inability to win support for a second resolution at the UN showed.

But Bush refused Monday night to accept blame or concede failure. What happened, he said, was the fault of others ‘‘who share our assessment of the danger but not our resolve to meet it.’’ Those countries, he said, have proved unwilling to meet the obligations of the post-Sept. 11 world.

‘‘The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours,’’ he said. In the days after the 9/11 attacks, the president presented the notion that, if the United States offered clear and strong leadership, the rest of the world would be compelled to follow along in the war against terrorism.

And in those hours and days, the world did rally behind him. But his leadership in confronting Iraq has proved far less compelling to others in the world, who did not experience the shock of the attacks inflicted on the US, and even to many in this country.

Even Monday, Democratic leaders on both sides of the question of whether the United States should go to war criticised the president for leaving the United States so isolated on the eve of conflict.

The toughest words came from Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, D-S.D., who said the president had ‘‘failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re forced to war.’’ But even Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the staunchest supporters of disarming Saddam by force, said the administration’s ‘‘unilateralist, divisive diplomacy’’ had jeopardised bringing the world together at this moment for a cause that is “fully justified”.

Whether the failure to win UN support resulted from administration mistakes or the implacable opposition of traditional US allies, such as France, will be the subject of hard feelings and continuing debate.

For a time, that debate may fade to the back stage as the country rallies behind the president and the men and women in combat in the Gulf, but it is certain to re-emerge once hostilities end, and the messy run-up to war leaves the president more vulnerable if things go badly.

Unlike his father 12 years ago, Bush has come to the brink of war relatively isolated in the world. But he has closely studied his father’s presidency, hoping to avoid the mistakes that made his father a one-term president, and given that, the contrast between the two on the eve of war is especially striking.

The president’s speech Monday night provided one more chance to make the case for war, but with the breakdown in diplomacy at the UN earlier in the day, the time for persuasion is over.

His presidency is no longer yoked to his ability to change minds with words and rhetoric but to the successful outcome of a war — and its aftermath — that has come entirely at his own choosing. (LA Times-Washington Post)