Regards, Ivan
Posted on 12/21/2002 4:21:43 PM PST by MadIvan
Call it the Powell-Cheney strategy. It has been the guiding force behind the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq for the past six months or so. And it’s so obvious a gambit it’s a little strange how wilfully blind many observers of all stripes have been in missing it.
Last week was one of its most successful yet — when both France and Hans Blix essentially echoed the US-UK argument that Iraq’s latest “disclosure” of its secret weapons production was a sham.
The “material breach” cited by America is a quiet, simple, calm, but devastating casus belli. And it is all the more devastating because it has the endorsement of the international community.
Perhaps the strategy is best expressed by a simple punitive metaphor. If an armed criminal is cornered — one who has used brute force before, is known to be unstable, holds innocents hostage and may have extremely powerful weapons — the police have several options.
They can shoot first, kill him and then disarm him, risking the hostages and inflaming the situation. They can set up negotiations and try to persuade him to disarm by appealing to reason, previous agreements and various non-violent incentives.
Or they can keep talking to him, slowly increase the number of cops and firepower surrounding him, edge closer, and make ever firmer demands that he hand over his weapons.
The hope is that at some point he will crack and you won’t have to use force. The guarantee is that if he doesn’t surrender his arms, he will be obliterated. And all of it is being broadcast live on television, subjecting every police action to withering scrutiny.
If you think of the Bush strategy that way, then so far, so extremely good. The paranoids on the left keep screaming about the American bully, its madness, its instinctive unilateralism, and they have been able, with the passive help of institutions such as the BBC, to persuade large numbers of people that this is an accurate description of American foreign policy under Bush.
The trouble is: it isn’t true. Bush has never argued that America’s first choice is to wage war without allies. Far from it. But at the same time, he believes that America should actually lead its allies, rather than be prostrate and passive in front of them.
By stating clearly after September 11 that America could no longer tolerate a sworn enemy making weapons of mass destruction that could be used directly or indirectly against the West, the US took a clear stand.
Last September the president reminded the United Nations that such a position was, in fact, its own and that its own resolutions on this matter were being flouted, ignored and undermined.
Did Bush then declare he was going to war? No. He directed his administration to weeks and weeks of diplomacy to craft a new UN resolution. He gave Iraq a new and last chance to disarm.
When Iraq produced a mass of documents allegedly proving its compliance with UN resolutions, Bush didn’t immediately dismiss it. His administration spent days and days studying it closely until they came up with their damning assessment.
For his sins, Bush was honest enough to say that he found it highly unlikely that, given his past, Saddam would voluntarily disarm and that therefore regime change was virtually synonymous with disarmament. And he set about amassing an international coalition and a vast military force to achieve it, if force became necessary. For this he was slammed for having made up his mind. He should have been congratulated for candour and patience.
This strategy was a fusion of Dick Cheney’s insistence that the attempt to disarm Iraq must not degenerate into yet another sham; and Colin Powell’s (and Tony Blair’s) insistence that it must be done with the maximum amount of international co-operation and within the construct of the United Nations. (Karl Rove, Bush’s political strategist, who also read the polls showing that many Americans were leery of a dangerous war without allies, was surely also a persuasive whisper.)
This isn’t unilateralism, and it isn’t passive multilateralism. It’s a multilateralism made possible by the determination and leadership of the superpower.
Bush, one should recall, is a patient man. He hates being boxed in to a position he can’t get out of. He loathes being pressured by any single ally or cabinet member. He listens widely and he acts quite slowly.
One should recall how he waited out the Florida election drama, while directing his lieutenants to play hard. One should also recall how he didn’t jump the gun in the Afghan campaign; and he didn’t panic when, initially, others forecast failure.
Similarly with Iraq. His policy has managed to combine the calm ferocity of Cheney with the smooth conciliation of Powell. What does it mean now? Essentially that Saddam and his lieutenants have increasingly few options.
Bush doubtless hopes that the slow but inexorable increase in diplomatic and military pressure might lead to a sudden collapse or split in the Iraqi regime, and the effective disarmament of Iraq. Western soldiers might still be needed to stabilise a country thus thrown into chaos, but they wouldn’t have to fight their way in.
But it’s more likely, of course, that war is now inevitable. My own test of when the mobilisation would begin in earnest was as soon as Powell said the words “material breach”. That just happened.
And by exhausting every other avenue before getting there, Bush has had the smarts to metaphorically disarm his critics before he literally disarms Saddam.
Make no mistake: very soon, Saddam will be disarmed. And the world will be a safer place, the UN a stronger institution and the war on terror will move inexorably on to the next, looming threat.
Regards, Ivan
I don't think so. I like Andrew Sullivan, but he can be a big girl's blouse. This is not a fairy tale we are living in. Saddam Hussein has not defied the world to acquire WMD just for his personal amusement. They are all that stands between him and annihilation. They are his insurance, and he isn't going to give them up any time soon. That would be suicide. So, Saddam's comeback to us will be "Molon labe!" And that puts us in a very, very difficult position. The words "Weapons of Mass Destruction" actually mean something -- they aren't just a mantra to stir up moral indignation. Anybody who doesn't see that is deluding themselves.
| My own test of when the mobilisation would begin in earnest was as soon as Powell said the words “material breach”. That just happened.
|
Er?
While polls have consistently revealed high levels of support for taking action against Saddam, they have also seemed to suggest that about half of those in support would prefer the action to have UN-sanction and within a coalition.
I would argue that, by offering this choice, the pollsters are actually guiding the response in that direction. When asked to judge a hypothetical situation, poll respondents will invariably seek the most "reasonable and moderate" course.
More than likely, if we were to single-handedly kick the crap out of Saddam, something around 90% of the country would cheer and be unconcerned that we did it without the support of, say, Belgium.
But the polls are polls and Sullivan's report is technically accurate.
We *should* have paid more attention to the way he handled that. It's a good example of how he works. He decides what he wants to happen; he gets advice from talented people; and then chooses what he thinks is the best plan. Then he lets the people he chose to implement the plan do it. He'll cheer them on, but he won't second-guess them or undermine them by changing plans in mid-stream.
That's why we all know Saddam is toast (we just don't know when). And we also know we won't be seeing any pix of Arafat at Camp David again.
It's taken foreign leaders awhile to figure out that while clintoon could abandon a foreign policy in a nanosecond, Bush won't. It's going to get easier to deal with the rogues.
Clear thinking by Andrew. The man has a fine mind.
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.
It's war then, is it? Damn. I did not know that. I thought all the hot news was about Trent Lott.