A fresh war with Iraq would have far-reaching impact on US politics, its economy and diplomacy as well as on the world as a whole. The United State's recent unity has given way to an open and frank debate on the issues that largely reflect partisan sentiments.

However, handicapped by an intentional official policy of demonizing Baghdad, few US politicians are willing to take the risk of appearing to defend a hostile country like Iraq. They fear it would jeopardize their own political futures, especially since hyper-patriotism took hold of the country in the aftermath of the September 11 incident.

But political jeopardy did not prevent House Majority (Republican) leader Dick Armey, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from coming out to voice their opposition to a preemptive strike against Iraq.

Armey stressed that using force without clear provocation is unjustified, while Albright believes that Iraq does not pose a "direct threat" to the United States and has been well contained by the UN sanctions.

Echoing Armey and Albright, Senator Hagel pointed out that an unprovoked military strike against Iraq would go against two centuries of US foreign policy and could tempt other nations to follow a US example. "A lot of uncontrollable and unintended consequences could well flow from this," he was quoted as saying recently.

The voices from another camp of opposition, those favoring an eventual regime change in Iraq, but advocating a more prudent approach, are gaining attention in the ongoing debate in the United States. This can be explained in part because some of the voices belong to such experienced Republican politicians as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and one-time presidential National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Questions that have been raised range from whether the administration has made a convincing case against Iraq, the timing of military action, the cost of the war, post-war arrangements, and diplomatic support and consequences.

According to Kissinger, a preemptive approach would challenge the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which laid down the principal of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other states.

More immediately, it would run counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force only in self-defence and not against potential threats, Kissinger said in recent newspaper articles and interviews.

He advised the Bush administration to work out a comprehensive strategy based on long-term US interests when formulating a first-strike plan against Iraq and to take the opportunity to build a new international order.

Scowcroft, together with another former Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, and other members of the Republican establishment, have also expressed concerns about the foreign policy price that the United States would pay if it goes it alone in carrying out military strikes against Iraq.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat, also favours a go-slow approach and pressed for an open debate to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of a war, especially on issues like post-Saddam arrangements in the Arab country.

To the Bush administration's satisfaction, some other prominent figures, including House Minority (Democrat) leader Dick Gephardt, House Majority (Republican) Whip Tom DeLay, and Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, a former vice-presidential candidate, are rallying behind the administration and calling for a military campaign to topple the Iraqi government led by President Saddam Hussein.

Speaking on the record, Gephardt and Lieberman recently issued statements strongly advocating a US military attack on Iraq.

Responding to the domestic debate, the Bush administration insists that it has not yet made up its mind. It also said it is patient and will consult with Congress and US allies before making a final decision.

(China Daily August 29, 2002)