The news reports that at least several ranking members of al-Qaida have taken refuge in Iraq will mute some of the dissent against a U.S. attack there but the words of caution from experienced former officials remain worth considering. Broadly, they worry about an attack’s effect on the war on terrorism, the lack of allied support and the uncertain aftermath of an attack. President Bush said he was willing to listen to the policy experts. If he does, here is a sample of what he will hear.

Brent Scowcroft, former security adviser under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush: “There is little evidence to indicate that the United States itself is the object of [Saddam’s] aggression. Rather, Saddam’s problem with the U.S. appears to be that we stand in the way of his ambitions. He seeks weapons of mass destruction not to arm terrorists, but to deter us from intervening to block his aggressive designs. … But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy costs and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism.”

Henry Kissinger, secretary of state to President Nixon, on the White House’s go-it-alone strategy: “America’s special responsibility is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power – indeed, that strives to translate power into co-operation. Any other attitude will gradually isolate and exhaust America.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter: “Detailed evidence needs to be presented that the threat [from Iraq] is both grave and imminent. An explanation is also needed as to why one member of ‘the axis of evil’ is seen as more menacing than the others. The president’s case should also serve as the basis for serious and searching consultations with Congress and with key allies as well as other interested states.”

Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of state to President George H.W. Bush, on the two strongest advocates for attack, Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense: “I think they have convinced themselves that it can be done on the cheap by using these rebels, if you will, these people who are anti-Saddam Iraqis. I think there are at least six of them and the point is I have no idea whether they can be used or not, whether they are real people or not and whether they would succeed or not and I don’t think there’s any evidence one way or another. I am scared to death that they are going to convince the president that they can do this, overthrow Saddam on the cheap and we’ll find ourselves in the middle of a swamp because we didn’t plan to do it in the right way.”

The administration’s often-stated argument is that it does not have the luxury of time to build a broad coalition and that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose too immediate a threat to withhold action. Several of those who have been in similar situations reach a much different conclusion.