Can the war be stopped?

AMMAN, Jordan -- Reporting "good progress" but mixed results during two days of talks with Iraq, U.N. weapons chiefs left Baghdad on Sunday having secured interviews with scientists and a diplomatic pouch full of more promises.
But despite Iraq's handing over new documents about its anthrax, VX nerve agent and missile programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said cooperation on issues of substance were "less good."
Nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei -- who has said Iraq needed to show "drastic change" -- said that instead he saw only "the beginning of a change of heart."
Critical step
The two will take the details of their talks to the U.N. Security Council on Friday -- a critical step in the diplomatic endgame that is likely to show whether Iraq's drip-by-drip compliance is enough to stop the U.S. march to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
Experts say that Iraq's latest shift toward greater cooperation -- while still rejecting U-2 surveillance overflights -- is significant, but still leaves Iraq with many moves yet to play.
"When he is really pushed, Saddam has historically made concessions, and I strongly suspect [Blix and ElBaradei] will have some tactical successes," says Tim McCarthy, a former U.N. weapons inspector, now at the Monterey Institute's Center for Non-Proliferation Studies in California. "But in terms of the fundamental strategic change -- a government- wide Iraqi decision to disarm -- at this moment it's impossible."
International divide
To the annoyance of American officials, and underscoring the depth of the international divide over war with Iraq, a report in the German news magazine Der Spiegel said that France and Germany had a "secret" plan to disarm Iraq peacefully. It called for the deployment of thousands of U.N. soldiers, reconnaissance flights and a tripling of the number of weapons inspectors. German officials said Sunday they planned to put forward the proposal, which appears to have Russian backing. Secretary of State Colin Powell dismissed it as "a diversion, not a solution."
Western officials have long expected some form of Iraqi concessions, similar to those that preceded the 1991 Gulf War and American-led strikes against Iraq in the 1990s. In some cases those efforts delayed military action.
"Saddam Hussein finally realized that the Americans are going to war," says Charles Heyman, editor of the London-based Jane's World Armies. "Up until then, he was saying, 'It's all bluff; they are frightened of taking casualties.'"
It's not clear that a shift this late in the game will halt the American push for a military solution. "I've certainly never seen a buildup like this where they all went home," Heyman says, noting the surge of American troops in the region to near 200,000. But avoiding war is cheaper, and it can yield a sweeter victory for President Bush and the closest U.S. ally on Iraq, British premier Tony Blair.
"[Chinese philosopher] Sun Tzu said 2,000 years ago: 'The greatest general is the one who wins the war without fighting,'" Heyman said. "That's a high-risk strategy, and politicians don't normally gamble like this."
Spy-plane flights
Iraq balked at the U-2 flights, saying until this weekend that it couldn't guarantee their safety, because Iraqi anti-aircraft gunners were engaged in cat-and-mouse shootouts over no-fly zones over north and south Iraq.
And since inspectors of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission returned to Iraq last December -- with an express mandate to interview scientists in private, and even take them out of the country if necessary -- scientists refused until last Thursday to take part in interviews without Iraqi officials present.
But these issues are tailor-made to be bargaining chips for Iraq, critics say, to simply give the impression of compliance.
Despite the skepticism, Blix and ElBaradei "believe the leverage provided by the military buildup and intense scrutiny of the council is enough to make a fundamental change ... or they wouldn't be going" to Baghdad, says McCarthy. He remains unconvinced: "It's just like hiding weapons -- they're giving up the easy stuff first, then will retreat, retreat, retreat in concentric circles, [and] not decide to disarm."
If he does
If Iraq has decided to disarm, to save Saddam's repressive regime, Western diplomats and other experts say it could ruin the U.S. and British case for war. The key will be clear Friday, if Blix and Baradei report substantial change in Iraq's cooperation.
"I don't think this is very likely, but it would basically make it impossible for the U.S. and U.K. to get a second resolution to bless a war," says Gary Samore, a former Clinton nonproliferation chief now at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. "And without that second resolution, it becomes much more difficult -- not impossible -- for Washington to launch an attack."
Little doubt remains among Security Council members, experts say, that Iraq retains some weapons of mass destruction material -- if only from programs already admitted to the United Nations. The argument is over how to deal with it.
"There is a strong argument for containment. A credible threat of force, robust inspections and strong control over procurement ... could very well be effective," says Samore. "But at the same time, you can't quarrel with Bush's contention that a far more effective way to disarm Iraq is to invade the country, destroy the regime and occupy Iraq."
'A Texas gamble'
But the price of such a course is difficult to calculate. "President Bush is gambling that the war is going to be quick and easy, because Iraqi forces will crumble," says Samore. "It's a Texas gamble."
Even at this stage, however, with so many American troops already deployed or on their way to positions ringing Iraq, war may not be inevitable.

Don't Miss a Story

Sign up for our newsletter to receive daily news directly in your inbox.