Same ends, different means: while disagreeing about the necessity of war with Iraq, both the "conservative" Bush administration and the Marxist-led "peace" movement seek to empower the UN.

Although they may disagree about the means, the Bush administration and the international "peace" movement are in accord regarding the objective in Iraq: Both sides eagerly seek to enhance the power and prestige of the UN by enforcing Security Council disarmament resolutions.

Many commentators have correctly pointed out that the roster of anti-war activists is cluttered with the names of veteran leftists, including geriatric figures from the Vietnam era. This is particularly true of Win Without War (WWW), a project of MoveOn.org, a partisan Democratic pressure group. WWW's campaign debuted with a lengthy protest petition bearing the names of scores of celebrities and activists, including notorious Hollywood leftists like EdAsner, Mike Farrell, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Dennis Weaver; PeterYarrow of "Peter, Paul and Mary" infamy; feminist agitator Gloria Steinem; and Marxist historian Howard Zinn.

Introduced at a December 10th Hollywood press conference, Win Without War claims to represent "millions of Americans and seeks to prevent bloodshed and the loss of life on all sides by slowing the Bush administration's apparent rush to war," according to a press release. WWW is hard-wired into the radical network and boasts the support of such prominent leftist lobbies as the National Organization for Women, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, and the National Council of Churches.

Given WWW's background and affiliations, many people would assume that its objectives are diametrically opposed to those of the supposedly conservative Bush administration. The statement contained in the group's petition, however, is one of solidarity with the administration's stated objectives: "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure [sic] Iraq's effective disarmament.... The valid U.S. and UN objective of disarming Saddam Hussein can be achieved through legal diplomatic means. There is no need for war."

No Disagreement

Where Win Without War and similar leftist groups demand that the Bush administration support the UN, they are pushing against an open door. The Bush administration's policy, as demonstrated by the repeated and explicit statements of the president himself, is to disarm Iraq under UN auspices to enhance the UN's power and credibility.

Consider the following illustrations:

* In an address to the UN General Assembly on September 12th of last year, President Bush proclaimed: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" On this and other occasions, Mr. Bush has made clear that he wants the UN to be relevant. "We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful," he told the General Assembly. "We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced."

* Answering questions at Camp David two days later, Mr. Bush revisited the UN-must-not-become-irrelevant theme: "The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body, as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out.... So this is a chance for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve, as we confront the true challenges of the 21st century." And he revisited that theme once again in his national radio address of September 14th: "Saddam Hussein's defiance has confronted the United Nations with a difficult and defining moment: Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purposes of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

* On October 31st, Mr. Bush told a South Dakota audience: "I went to the United Nations a while ago because I want the United Nations to be effective.... It makes sense for there to be an international body that has got the backbone and the capacity to help keep the peace. And so here is my message, a message, by the way, resoundingly supported by members of both political parties in the Senate and the House: The message to the world is that we want the U.N. to succeed. We want those resolutions you pass to be listened to. You have told Saddam Hussein he must disarm: do your job."

* On November 8th, the day UN Security Council Resolution 1441 to disarm Iraq was passed, Mr. Bush stated: "America will be making only one determination: is Iraq meeting the terms of the Security Council resolution or not?... If Iraq fails to comply, the United States and other nations will disarm Saddam Hussein."

* "The Iraqi regime has a duty under Security Council resolutions to declare and destroy all of its weapons of mass destruction," declared President Bush at a January 3rd rally for the troops at Ft. Hood. "That's what the world has said. That's what the United States expects from Saddam Hussein.... We can now be certain that [Saddam] holds the United Nations and the U.N. Security Council and its resolutions in contempt. He really doesn't care about the opinion of mankind. Saddam Hussein was given a path to peace; thus far, he has chosen the path of defiance."

* The bulk of Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the Security Council on February 5th described (in Powell's words) "the situation with respect to Iraq and its disarmament obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441." According to Powell, that resolution "gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present and voting on that day had any illusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply." In short, Resolution 1441 was effectively a UN declaration of war against Iraq.

* The day after Powell's February 5th presentation, President Bush stated: "The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council resolutions are evident, and they continue to this hour.... On November 8th, by demanding the immediate disarmament of Iraq, the United Nations Security Council spoke with clarity and authority." Confronted with Iraq's "direct defiance of Security Council [Resolution] 1441," explained Bush, "the Security Council must not back down, when [its] demands are defied and mocked by a dictator." Setting the stage for war, the president declared: "All the world can rise to this moment.... The United Nations can renew its purpose and be a source of stability and security in the world. The Security Council can affirm that it is able and prepared to meet future challenges and other dangers."

* Mr. Bush reiterated that formula in a February 7th press briefing. "This is a defining moment for the U.N. Security Council," insisted the president. "If the Security Council were to allow a dictator to lie and deceive, the Security Council would be weakened.... [T]he U.N. Security Council has got to make up its mind soon as to whether or not its word means anything."

* A White House national security fact sheet laying Out the case against Saddam's regime describes its drive to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, as well as its ongoing efforts to thwart UN arms inspections. Although the White House document notes that Saddam "aids and protects terrorists, including al-Qaeda members," it said nothing about Iraqi involvement in terrorism against our nation. However, it did mention Saddam's "utter contempt for the U.N.," his regime's noncooperation with arms inspectors and its blocking of UN-requested surveillance flights (which Iraq permitted to resume following Powell's February 5th speech), and threats against scientists who cooperate with the UN. In brief, the Bush administration is treating Iraq's refusal to submit to UN dictates as threatening our national security.

* "[I]f force becomes necessary to disarm Iraq and enforce the will of the United Nations, if force becomes necessary to secure our country and to keep the peace, America will act deliberately, America will act decisively, and America will act victoriously with the world's greatest military' the president proclaimed at a February 13th rally for sailors at Jacksonville, Florida's Mayport Naval Station. "The decision is this for the United Nations: When you say something does it mean anything?" continued the president. "You've got to decide, if you lay down a resolution, does it mean anything? The United Nations Security Council can now decide whether or not it has the resolve to enforce its resolutions. I'm optimistic that the U.N. Security Council will rise to its responsibilities, and this time ensure enforcement of what it told Saddam Hussein he must do. See, I believe when it's all said and done, free nations will not allow the United Nations to fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating soci ety."

* In a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on February 26th, Bush stated: "In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council -- so much that we want its words to have meaning." He also explained that "the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to 'make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force.'"

Worst of Both Worlds

The president and his subordinates have made their intent transparently clear: The impending war on, or occupation of, Iraq is intended to carry out the UN Security Council's mandates, not to protect our nation or to punish those responsible for the September 11th attack. The war would uphold the UN's supposed authority and vindicate its role as a de facto world government.

Syndicated columnist Mark Steyn, a Bush administration supporter and critic of the UN, points out that in the first Gulf War, President Bush (the elder) established the principle that "it's now 'illegitimate' to go to war unless under the auspices of the UN.... [A]nother UN-sanctioned war would enshrine the principle that only the UN can sanction war."

Approaching the issue from the other political direction, Robert Wright, a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed out in the February 4th New York Times that the current President Bush has given the UN "a prominence it has rarely enjoyed in its 57-year history. In fact, there remains a slim chance that the president could, however paradoxically, emerge as a historic figure in the United Nations' own evolution toward enduring significance.... [I]f Nixon could go to China, President Bush can go through New York." By pressuring the UN to enforce its resolutions, Mr. Bush is making it easier for the UN to do just that. At the same time, he is making it more difficult for fellow Republicans to oppose UN empowerment--just as, decades earlier, Mr. Nixon made it more difficult for fellow Republicans to oppose opening U.S. relations with Communist China.

Wright believes that additional Security Council resolutions could lead either to the peaceful unseating of Saddam's regime, or to a UN-sanctioned war. "But at least it would be war of the kind multilateralists wisely prefer: under explicit United Nations authority, with multinational participation," he writes.

It's worth mentioning that the same Robert Wright commending President Bush's efforts to empower the UN authored a January 17, 2000 New Republic cover story bearing this provocative title: "America is surrendering its sovereignty to a world government. Hooray." The "teaser" headline on that article proclaims: "World government is coming. Deal with it." Clearly, Wright -- an unabashed globalist who craves an end to our national independence -- recognizes that President Bush is doing his best to bring about those objectives.

Wright also admits that one inevitable consequence of this crusade will be an escalating terrorist war against American citizens. A UN-sanctioned war on Iraq "wouldn't eliminate terrorist blow-back," Wright continued in his Times op-ed. "An American-led war followed by military occupation would be a publicity bonanza for al-Qaeda, with grave long-term consequences." According to Wright, the escalation in terrorism that will inevitably follow another UN military strike on Iraq is simply part of the price that must be paid for enhancing the UN's power and prestige.

Indeed, an escalation in terrorism would accelerate the drive to empower the UN. But if the UN has the power to disarm one nation, it can disarm others -- including the United States. Nations would not be disarmed in a vacuum; the UN would be given the military capabilities to police the world -- supposedly to save us from the terrorist threat.

Classic Campaign

What we are seeing is a classic application of a familiar revolutionary tactic -- the pincer attack. The Bush administration's drive for war represents "pressure from above" on behalf of the UN, with the administration's supposed antagonists in the peace movement offering complementary "pressure from below." And according to public opinion surveys, this strategy to empower the UN is paying off. Polls conducted by the Gallup Organization and the Pew Research Center in late February "found that while majorities say they support the basic proposition of disarming Hussein by force, that support is strongly conditional on obtaining UN approval for any war," reported Newsday on February 23rd.

If Iraq has taken part in any terrorist attack on the United States, the evidence should be presented to Congress, which has the sole authority to commit our nation to war. If war is to be made on Iraq, it must be done through constitutional means and in the service of our own ends -- namely, protecting our freedom and national independence. Waging war on behalf of the pro-terrorist, anti-American UN would be tantamount to treason.