Posted on 03/23/2003 5:33:55 AM PST by Lessismore
The day the Iraq war began is likely to be remembered for a long time as a turning point in 21st century history. On this day, a new world structure emerged-one in which the United States is the sole designer and controller of the international order.
Or worse, perhaps America pulled the trigger on this day to throw the world into unimaginable chaos. America may win this war, but it could also lose its honor. The world now stands on the verge of such chaos.
A week after the United States suffered the terrible tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the first foreign leader to rush to Washington was none other than French President Jacques Chirac. Hugging President George W. Bush at the White House, Chirac swore France would ``stand in total solidarity with the United States'' to fight terrorism. What he expressed was the collective resolve of the international community at the time.
Only 18 months later, Chirac became the loudest voice of reason to challenge Bush as the U.S. president rushed to go to war against Iraq. This ironic twist of fate is symbolic of the state of the world today.
Henry John Temple, Viscount Palmerston, is a 19th century British foreign secretary who later became prime minister. ``We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies,'' he said. ``Our interests are perpetual and eternal, and it is our duty to follow these interests.''
Obviously, the nations that are opposed to this war against Iraq have their own interests and agendas. But it was ultimately none other than America's self-righteousness that made such long-time friends as France and Germany turn their backs on America.
The United States fought many wars during the 20th century. Excesses were committed and there were messy mistakes in some. Overall, however, those wars liberated the world from totalitarianism. For confronting the threat of communism, America became the shining symbol of freedom and democracy.
But what about this new war? Never before has the United States rushed into war amid so much global opposition. Even former President Jimmy Carter condemned preparations for the unilateral attack as ``action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.''
This is not to say America's stated reasons for waging this war are completely groundless. I agree that any terrorist threat should be nipped in the bud. And I accept that Iraq is a dangerous nation that has yet to repent for its actions that led to the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
For Bush, who compares Sept. 11 to Pearl Harbor and likens President Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, the war against Iraq is none other than a 21st century war of justice.
America is strong. In this world where terrorists run loose and nations like North Korea and Iraq exist, America is undoubtedly the trusty policeman of the world.
But its very strength is also a curse. America is just too strong. Nobody else is even close. And yet, it flaunts its military power even though it is far mightier than anything other nations might assemble together. The U.S. economy, its culture and control of information have overrun the world. America's excessive self-confidence in its role as the builder of the world order has created new enemies.
Having declared its readiness to even go solo in attacking Iraq, America has aroused intense anti-American sentiments throughout the Arab world. And what will be the consequences, should religion enter the picture? America has become an overbearing policeman who turns off even his friends. France and Germany refused to budge, expressing their defiance against America's unipolar domination of the world.
But Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi did no such thing. He chose to follow America amid gusts of headwind.
Power play is what international politics is all about, Koizumi the ``pragmatist'' must have concluded. Ergo, you can't lose if you side with the strong guy. End of discussion.
But war is the most miserable human activity that presupposes killing and being killed.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder asked his nation on March 18, ``Does the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator justify a war, which is sure to kill thousands of innocent children, women and men?''
Like Germany, Japan has blood on its hands from the last century, for which no amount of remorse will probably ever be enough. How is one to interpret Koizumi's apparent lack of concern?
In giving its blessing to America's risky war, Japan cast a vote in favor of a unipolar world ruled by America.
Japan's loss is incalculable.(IHT/Asahi: March 21,2003)
The fact is that Saddam broke the deal that ended Gulf War 1 and he is a war criminal to boot. That's all the moral justification we need to pursue this, and is a convincing case in and of itself. When the WMD threat and terror links are thrown on top, even Ray Charles can see that our case is irrefutable.
Why we aren't pounding this point I will never know, but it's a mistake that's going to subject us all to more undeserved America Bashing well into the forseeable future.
I remember there was a Japanese official some years back who was asked how long it would take Japan to develop an atomic bomb if they decided to do so. His response was, "five minutes".
We aren't pounding your very correct point simply because we are going to be fighting MORE than just Iraq in the near future, and those other nations/entities are NOT in violation of prior surrender agreements with the U.S. like Iraq is currently, so the logic would fall flat *after* Iraq.
The Japanese author of this article is clearly too young to know to respect his elders.
Koizumi is not only correct to back Bush instead of the two-faced Chirac (who demanded that NATO wage war on Serbia without UN approval in 1999), but also, Koizumi rocks!
Not that the author for this article will be able to see it (he/she needs to get out into the real world more).
On this day, the terms "defending your country" or "retaliating against attacks" was redefined as being the "sole designer and controller of the international order." Of course, this is coming from a nation that saw no problem commiting atrocities to rival hitler in china, or attacking sovereign nations without cause or provocatation.
It absolutely kills me to hear this garbage about a dictator like Saddam who in a just world would have been dispatched a decade ago..
The guy deserves it. Fault us for upcoming actions all you want, but this guy earned what he's getting. He worked ten years for it.
Simply because we can't make that same case against Iran and North Korea, for one.
If we had justified the War on Iraq based upon their violations of their 1991 surrender treaty, sure, the whole world would be supporting us in *this* war, and then everyone and their dog would be saying "North Korea isn't in violation of their armistace treaty" when we turned to take care of them next. Politically, it would have destroyed our chances of taking care of North Korea and/or Iran.
On the other hand, as "state sponsors of terrorism", we can justify the same military actions against Iran and North Korea as we have against Iraq, and generate pretty much the self-same international coalition of the willing against them.
Thus, the new pictures of liberated Iraqis cheering U.S. troops in Umm Qasr must be sending chills up the spines of the various leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang right about now.
But had we used the "treaty violations" justification for waging this war on Iraq, the leaders in Pyongyang and Tehran would be sleeping easy knowing that the same could not be said of them.
GWB and his team are thinking more than just one step ahead in this chess game, and that's one of many things that is driving the French, Germans, Iranians, and North Koreans mad.
Not true--the next likely candidate is N. Korea, which is in EXACTLY the same boat as Iraq wrt UN "irresolutions". Remember, the Korean War officially never ended--there was simply a "cease-fire" which has lasted half a century. One can argue that the attempt to develop nuclear weapons makes a good case for them having violated the cease-fire.
Now, after N.Korea, your point is well taken.
Perhaps you know something about North Korea that I don't, as I'm unaware of any major material breach by North Korea of their Armistace Treaty.
Bringing a few illegal machine guns into the DMZ does *not* make for world-wide coalition-building enthusiasm.
With Iraq, you can easily make the case that it has violated the 1991 surrender treaty because it has been firing on U.S. aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.
North Korea, on the other hand, has not fired on any U.S. aircraft in South Korean or International Airspace (at least, none of which I'm aware).
Thus, North Korea is in a different position than Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.