Before Attacking Hussein

The four national security advisors, who were in charge of diplomatic policies of the White House, raised their voice to object to attack Iraq unilaterally.

Not just ones from the Democratic Party such as Zbigniew Brezinski, who contributed for the Washington Post on the 18, and Sandy Burger, who testified at the Senate diplomatic committee on the 2nd, but ones from the Republican Party such as Henry Kisinger (the Washington Post on the 12th) and Brent Scowcroft (the Wall Street Journal on the 15th) stood by the prudence side.

Especially, Scowcroft, who worked as the national security advisor during the President George W. Bush’s father the former President George Bush’s administration, was opposed to attack Iraq with a straight forward title; ‘Don’t attack Sadam (the name of the Iraqi President Hussein).’

They all agreed on the fact that Iraq was being ‘menace.’

However, they pointed out △whether Iraq was developing massive killing weapons, △whether Iraq was involved in the 9.11 terror, and △the things to consider before attacking Iraq such as the consequence of attacking Iraq in the Middle East. As a result, they showed similarities on their assertions that although the Iraqi government was menacing and hateful one, it was extraordinary decision to attack a country that did not attack first; therefore, the following two conditions should be met first.

First of all, we cannot attack Iraq unless we persuade the allies, the Congress, and the American people about the propriety of attacking Iraq.

Second, we cannot attack Iraq without assuring rebuilding Iraq after the war.

The Washington Post reported on the 18th through its editorial that the former national security advisors thought it would be a long way for the Bush administration to meet those conditions.

Eun-Taek Hong euntack@donga.com