Rupert Cornwell: Is George Bush I worried about George Bush II?

The debate is not new. It dates back to when Saddam's forces were driven from Kuwait

Hamlet, George Walker Bush most certainly is not. Introspection and self-doubt are not his hallmarks. The baking summer heat of central Texas is moreover as far as can be from the misty chills of Elsinore. But when the President of the United States meets his national security advisers at his Crawford ranch today to discuss Iraq, a father's ghost will be in the air.

To attack, or not to attack? Until lately, in America at least, the question was barely worth asking. The 43rd President was assumed to have made up his mind to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The hawks – Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy at the Pentagon, Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice-President Dick Cheney – had prevailed over more cautious souls such as Colin Powell at the State Department, and the only outstanding questions were when and how.

In the end, America may well invade Iraq, perhaps within the next six months. But finally, debate has been joined in earnest, if only on newspaper op-ed pages and the Sunday TV talk shows. And the leader of the forces of moderation, in spirit, if not in name, is widely assumed to be none other than the 41st President, George Bush senior.

In truth, the debate is not new, but the resurgence of an old one, dating back to when Saddam's forces were driven from Kuwait: should the first President Bush have seized the moment and thrust on to Baghdad, removing Saddam from power once and for all?

Bush Senior has scrupulously refrained from any public hint of telling his offspring how to do his job, least of all in the field of foreign affairs, where he has forgotten more than Bush junior ever learnt. Not a word about the Middle East, about the war against terror or about Iraq has slipped publicly from his lips. Which only makes it more intriguing that a procession of his old courtiers has been holding forth, urging the son to stay his hand now, just as the father did in March 1991.

Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of Desert Storm One, warns that an invasion might prompt Saddam to use the very weapons of mass destruction an invasion is supposed to forestall. Lawrence Eagleburger, the father's last Secretary of State, has spoken out against an attack, short of proof that Saddam has his finger on the trigger of a nuclear or biological weapon.

"I don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are against it," Mr Eagleburger declared at the weekend, expressing sentiments that General Powell himself probably shares but could never express in public except in a resignation speech.

But it was a piece last week in The Wall Street Journal by Brent Scowcroft, the elder's national security adviser, in which he warned of an "explosion of outrage against us" in the event of an attack, which really set Washington abuzz with speculation of a Bush family rift.

Not only was Mr Scowcroft's language the harshest. He is a very close friend of Bush the elder – so close he helped to write his autobiography. Two theories are circulating. One is that Mr Scowcroft was a surrogate, acting on the express instructions of his former commander-in-chief. The other, and more likely, theory is that, well aware of the latter's views, he went ahead, knowing exactly how his words would be interpreted.

Not only is the cast of characters a throwback to 11 years ago, when the elder Bush ran Operation Desert Storm. So too are the arguments. The hawks want to complete an unfinished job, having persuaded themselves that if America is bold, the pieces in the Middle East will fall miraculously into place: Iraq will turn into a showcase regional democracy, Palestinians will lie down with Israelis and the terrorists will be cowed into submission.

Nonsense, say the old Bush hands, with the heartfelt assent of the rest of the world – barring Israel and perhaps Tony Blair. To prevent the dismemberment of Iraq and further destabilisation of the region, they believe, America would be obliged to assume the dangerous and deeply unpopular role of occupying power.

Henry Kissinger, the grand old statesman of the Republicans and not usually regarded as squeamish in matters of foreign policy, has also chimed in, arguing that the US should only intervene if it was ready to sustain such an effort "for however long it is needed." Like Scowcroft, George Bush senior and almost everyone else, Kissinger believes the world would be far better off without Saddam Hussein. But like the other ghosts of crises and military campaigns past, he is telling the White House to think it through. And thinking it through means explaining to the public exactly why there is no alternative to an invasion of Iraq, whatever it takes.

Quite possibly Mr Bush will spurn the proffered advice. He may indeed already have gone too far to turn back. As the hawks argue, a change of mind now on Iraq would destroy his credibility in the war against terrorism.

Nonetheless, the debate is vital. Even more than the fate of Saddam and the stability of the Middle East is at issue. A US attack on Iraq raises the most basic questions of international relations, about the right of one country to attack another in the name of "pre-emptive self defence" and the example to others tempted to take matters into their own hands. If that's not worth discussing, what is?

rupertcornwell@hotmail.com