The regime Bush changes may be his

EVEN SOME OF THE high priests and acolytes of his father’s New World Order are starting to pan the major opus thus far of Bush 43, “Overture to a Regime Change.” Last week Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to the first President Bush, wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal advising against a military attack on Iraq. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger has voiced his doubts about the need for military action and Secretary of State Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the Gulf War, has been described in news reports as opposed to invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.

Scowcroft worries that a war with Iraq, opposed by virtually all our allies, will divert our energies and threaten our resources for the war on terrorism, for which international cooperation is essential. He cites “scant evidence” to tie Saddam to the Sept. 11 attacks. As for the “weapons of mass destruction” the Iraqi dictator is said to be developing, his instinct for survival should preclude his using them against the United States. But an invasion aimed at removing him from power, Scowcroft warned, might convince Saddam he has nothing left to lose, “leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.” His first strike would likely be against Israel, which might respond with nuclear weapons, “unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East.”

It’s possible that Scowcroft is overly pessimistic and the Bush administration can execute “regime change” in Baghdad without those dire consequences. Still, what is to be gained by running those risks? Well, we’ll save our President’s reputation, Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration official, explained to The New York Times. “The failure to take on Saddam after what the President said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the President that it would set back the war on terrorism,” said Perle.