Behind US rifts on hitting Iraq

Mr. Perle's fellow believers include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, among others. Iraq "is not a problem we can live with indefinitely," said Wolfowitz at a press briefing earlier this month.

Already, the hard-line talk has fueled a steady media buzz that makes action against Hussein seem almost inevitable. That, in turn, may be rippling into action. Just yesterday, an Iraqi dissident group took over the Iraqi Embassy in Berlin, calling the move a "first step toward the liberation of our beloved fatherland." Several hostages were taken, and at press time the situation was unresolved.

The incident is consistent with the Reaganite or "neoconservative" view that, if the US leads, others including opposition groups in Iraq, will follow.

The term "neoconservative" generally defines those who came of political age as liberal Democrats in the 1960s, then moved rightward in response to the horrors of communist totalitarianism. William Kristol, a former adviser to Vice President Dan Quayle who has argued strenuously for an invasion of Iraq, is the son of Irving Kristol, one of the best-known neoconservatives of all.

In general, the Reaganites argue that the threat from Iraq is acute, an invasion would be militarily easy, and that the rest of the Middle East doesn't want Hussein in power any more than the US does.

Scowcroft and the realists "tell the exact opposite story," says Stephen Walt, a professor of international politics at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School.

They hold that Hussein is weaker now than he was 10 years ago, that Desert Storm II would be far from a cakewalk, and that the US would become a pariah in Mideast capitals.

The Reaganites think they need to complete a job their elders didn't finish when they stopped short of Baghdad in Desert Storm I. The realists make pointed comments about the career paths of Perle and his fellows – Washington political assistant. "They have never worn a uniform," says a former government official with broad Mideast experience.

The realist-versus-Reaganite oversimplifies somewhat, say others. Ivo Daalder of Brookings sees a three-way struggle taking place. One group is "offensive imperialists," such as Perle, who want to make the world safe for freedom and democracy via US military action.

Another is "offensive realists," such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who say Hussein needs to be preempted, but care less about what Iraq's political future.

A third is "defensive realists," who see Hussein as a threat that might best be contained via continuing the status quo.

It's this three-way scrum "that's the more interesting debate," he says.

Page: 1 | 2