'04 Hopeful Dean: No Cause for War
In the first major policy speech of his campaign, the former governor is expected to reproach Bush for what he says is divisive foreign policy.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer
February 17, 2003
Expanding his opposition to a war against Iraq, Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean today is set to call for an extended process of intensified inspections as an alternative to a military invasion.
"We should continue [inspections] as long as there is progress toward disclosure and disarmament and the inspectors tell us credibly that there is promising work to be done," Dean, a former Vermont governor, says in a speech to be delivered at Drake University in Des Moines. An advance text was provided to the Los Angeles Times.
Even if inspectors find evidence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, Dean says, the United Nations should first give Iraq the opportunity to destroy them and then take military action solely to eliminate those weapons if Baghdad doesn't.
"Particular weapons can be destroyed without an all-out war to impose a change of regimes," he argues.
In what may preview the debate ahead, a senior advisor to a Democratic presidential contender who supports military action against Iraq immediately disparaged that proposal as "dangerously naive."
"That completely ignores the past 12 years," the advisor said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Dean is treating this as if there has been no record of deception, and no record of brutality.... It begs the question of how many more chances we want to give [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein to attack us or destabilize the region."
In the speech -- the first major policy address of his campaign -- Dean joins his Democratic rivals in arguing that President Bush's approach to foreign policy is dividing the United States "from some of our longest-standing and most important allies, when what we need is to pull the world community together in common action against the imminent threat of terrorism."
Like the other Democrats, Dean calls for a large increase -- in his case a doubling -- in spending on homeland security, along with renewed efforts to reduce American dependence on oil from the Middle East.
But in its sweeping opposition to military action in Iraq, Dean's speech widens his distance not only from Bush but also from his principal rivals for the 2004 Democratic nomination.
Dean's resistance to war has helped him gain a foothold in the Democratic race -- especially in Iowa, where hostility among party activists toward Bush's course is overwhelming.
In his remarks, Dean says again that he would not have voted for last fall's congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, contending that "many" in his party who backed it "postured for position instead of standing on principle."
Of the Democrats who have taken steps toward a presidential candidacy in 2004, the four from Congress -- Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John F. Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri -- all voted for the resolution. Like Dean, civil rights activist Al Sharpton opposes war.
Dean says he shares the Bush administration's insistence that "Saddam Hussein must disarm." But he argues that launching a war to disarm him, especially without broad international support, could pose unacceptable risks.
Key among the dangers, Dean says, is perilous urban combat for American troops, high levels of Iraqi civilian casualties and the risk that the U.S. invasion "will fuel the fires of international terror" by breeding resentments that help Al Qaeda enlist recruits.
Given the resentment among Arab radicals of the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, Dean says, "we need to consider what the effect will be of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Baghdad, a city that served for centuries as a capital of the Islamic world."
Dean says he would be willing to use U.S. forces unilaterally against Iraq "if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
But he argues that the administration has not showed evidence of that level of risk and should therefore rely on enhanced inspections for the indefinite future.
Inspectors should report back on their progress to the United Nations every 30 or 60 days, he says, "so we can assess whether to continue [that] course or take tougher action."
In the address, Dean also calls on Bush to offer North Korea a new diplomatic bargain to defuse the crisis over its nuclear weapons program.
In return for North Korea restoring international monitoring of fuel rods that can be used to develop nuclear weapons and suspending tests of long-range missiles, Dean says, the U.S. should pledge "to take no military action" against North Korea and resume direct high-level talks.
"The discussions should be wide-ranging and designed to give North Korea a chance to reduce its isolation and begin moving in the direction of a normal society," Dean says.
The administration has opposed such direct talks, arguing they would reward North Korea for restarting its nuclear program.
