Commitment on Iraq

President George Bush offered a strong case Wednesday for going to war against Iraq, with the leading and previously underappreciated reason being the improvement of human rights in the Middle East and the escape of “misery and torture” at the hands of Saddam Hussein. The speech was an improvement over the more bellicose statements from months earlier, but coming so far along in the path to war seemed also like a good question raised to match an answer already determined.

There are sound reasons for trying to drive Saddam Hussein from power, including going to war to do it. They are long-term reasons, ones that will require confronting more honestly the many Israeli-Palestinian issues, that will require, as the president observed, sustained support of political and economic reform in Iraq. Is the United States willing to commit to this? Is it willing, for instance, to forgo some tax cuts to increase spending on foreign aid? The president has avoided talk of sacrifice, but his comments Wednesday could lead in that direction.

Americans are being warned daily about the risks of an American-led invasion of Iraq. A cornered and desperate Saddam Hussein could strike back with his chemical and germ weapons against the invading forces and possibly against the continental United States. The invasion could ignite a wave of anti-Americanism in the Arab world and bring a flood of new recruits into the al-Qaida terrorist conspiracy. Conceivably, the invasion could bog down in long and bloody street fighting in Baghdad, with the American technological advantage offset by determined defenders who know the territory. Even after a flash victory and overthrow of Saddam, we could face a furious struggle for control of the country, with its oil fields and arsenal and weapons factories. And a long, expensive rehabilitation and reconstruction job would lie ahead.

Against those gloomy possibilities, we are asked to compare the risks of doing nothing. Saddam could restore his chemical and germ warfare plants and turn loose his thousands of atomic energy specialists to resume his development and production of nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Within the next few years, Saddam could rebuild his arsenal, including nuclear weapons, and could threaten his neighbors with nuclear blackmail or actual attack. His brutal dictatorship would be continued.

Put in those terms, the choice looks obvious. Get on with the war. Pull together, get United Nations approval if possible, but go ahead and fight and win now.

What’s missing from this balancing of risks is a third course, one that worked for a half century in the Cold War against the Soviet Union and has been working against Iraq in the decade since the Persian Gulf War. Containment and deterrence involve patience, watchfulness and determination, but they work. Saddam could have used his chemical weapons in the 1991 war, but he held back in the face of U.S. warning. Especially given the recent progress of the weapons inspectors, progress that would not have been made without the Bush administration’s insistence on preparing for war, allowing containment to continue working is a real option. The administration might consider it part of the “sustained commitment” the president promised Wednesday.

A test of the present inspection and containment approach awaits in the coming week. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has determined that Iraq’s Al Samoud 2 missiles have a range far beyond the agreed 92-mile maximum. He has ordered the Iraqis to start destroying them by March 1. President Bush has already discounted this test. He described the missiles as “just the tip of the iceberg,” and said that even if Saddam destroyed them he still would have no intention of disarming.

Mr. Bush, while increasingly impatient, has so far overridden his war hawks and continued to seek U.N. approval. He will do well to hold back a while longer on a decision to attack and continue with inspection and containment.