Theres a division in the Bush admin. On one side Powell and crew that like to stick with the old approach, build coalitions, mass forces, get in, get out quick. They also prefer "containment" over direct action.
Then theres Rumsfeld and crew, they believe in preemptive action in order to maintain the security of the US. They believe in striking first and if need be unilaterally. To sustain this policy they want a military that stays several steps ahead of the rest of the world.
Bush and Cheney both have been swayed by this later arguement since 9/11. You see this is what is called the "Bush Doctrine". However Bush Sr. and in particular Powell have pushed for more restraint and it was Powell who got Bush Jr to go through the UN. Thats the reason for Scowcroft letter in the papers.
Thats why Powell was the one to make the arguement to the UN.
However its far more likely war will come. But we dont know. Bush could have decided on a middle ground and decided to use the show of force and rhetoric to push Suddam into compliance.
This is unlikely however. Theres been several "reports" that say Bush Jr has tortured over the idea of wmd being used on Americans. While the Rumsfeld crew have been advocates of a preemptive policy going back to Gulf War 1 (they wanted to take out Suddam totally, or at the very least support the Shi'ite and the Kurds) it was Powell who made the arguement to Bush Sr. that it was time to stop. Bush Sr. from his CIA days has always be an advocate of "containment". He also had relationships with many members of the "coalition" and felt he didnt want to fracture those relationships. The Rumsfeld group wanted to go after Suddam 1st in the War on terror. Powell advocated a different approach
Things are different now, those on Rumsfeld side used 9/11 to bring home their point. Cheney now fully support their view. They say that sitting around waiting for something happen before we respond is in effect shirking their responsibilities.
They are committed to a strike first policy against potential threats not only to pre-empt but to prevent action that threaten the security of the US. And they feel if necessary we should go alone.
They believe not only will they get rid of Suddam but the will send a message to the world that no matter who you are or where you should you threaten the security of the US there will be consequence. They believe this threast will be a deterrent much in the same way that "assured mutal destruction" was a deterrent during the cold war. The implications of the "Bush Doctrine" reach further then just Iraq.
I think Bush is more to the side of the Rumsfelds but respects Powell, Scowcroft and his daddy enough not to make a snap descision. He is willing to give the UN a chance to make up its mind. But it would appear no matter which way the UN goes the US will attack Iraq.
If for no other reason then to make an example out of him.
No matter which way you lean I think its much better that the US wait until they propose the next UN resolution.
