Posted on 03/15/2003 9:25:31 PM PST by Destro
George's big mistake was to listen to Tony
By Anne Applebaum
(Filed: 16/03/2003)
Practically nobody is willing to say it, so let us be as frank as possible: the decision to conduct the invasion of Iraq in consultation with the United Nations - a decision taken by President George W Bush partly to mollify his friend Tony Blair - has been utterly disastrous. Even if it proves possible to bribe Guinea and Angola and Chile into voting for a second UN resolution - even if the French, miraculously, change their minds about the whole thing tomorrow - the diplomatic events of the past week will go down in history as the most embarassing for the United States and Britain in a long time.
Despite cajoling and bribery and flattery, Colin Powell and Jack Straw have found it nearly impossible to persuade the UN Security Council of the necessity of deposing Saddam Hussein by military force. Even Mexico, a country dependent on American trade, has refused to go along easily. Even Mr Bush's new best friend, Vladimir Putin, doesn't seem interested in co-operating.
There are three explanations for the disaster, each propounded, to various degrees, by different factions here in Washington, and each with some merit. One of them, the "I-told-you-so" faction, argues that all of this was inevitable, and that the real mistake was to go through the UN at all.
Even last autumn, when the Security Council seemed prepared to accept the American request for a "last chance" round of weapons inspections in Iraq, some feared a trap. If the inspectors found weapons, that would prove that Saddam was co-operating. If the inspectors did not find weapons, that would prove he didn't have weapons. In the event, the opponents of an invasion have managed to cite both the paucity of weapons and Saddam's belated, reluctant destruction of a handful of rockets as reasons not to invade. The result: the inspections process itself became an excuse to oppose war, as many predicted it would.
Alternatively, blame can be (and is, rather loudly) laid upon Mr Bush. He is at fault, to begin with, for failing to consult America's allies until last autumn, when preparations for war were already under way. He is also to blame for hitching the UN process to the American military's timetable, which dictates a war in the spring and not in the summer. If it were not for that, the inspections could just continue for a few more months, until all of the members of the Security Council had been shamed into admitting that the process had degenerated into farce. There would then be no need for a second resolution, no reason for Mr Bush and Mr Blair to humiliate themselves begging the Security Council members for their support.
Finally, there is a good, and not entirely sarcastic, case for blaming the French president, Jacques Chirac. His vehement refusal to countenance any kind of war in Iraq seems to have taken even Colin Powell by surprise. Without France's loud opposition, and without President Chirac's claim that this is all about "American power", not about Iraq, it is hard to see how Guinea and Mexico would have had the nerve to stand up against the United States, and hard to see how this would have evolved into the diplomatic disaster that it has become.
But that is the past. In the present, the flawed UN process, Mr Bush's lackadaisical attitude to alliances and French obstructionism have brought us to an extremely odd moment in diplomatic history. Weirdly, the fate of Mr Bush, of Mr Blair, and possibly of the international system itself, at least the one we have known since 1945, are now dependent on the results of a war in an obscure patch of Middle Eastern desert.
If the war is a great victory, if it lasts just a few days, and if it results in a democratic Iraq, Mr Bush will get a chance of being re-elected, Mr Blair will be vindicated, France will be cowed. A new Nato will probably rise from the ashes, centred on the "new" Europe: America, Britain, Spain, eastern Europe. The UN Security Council could lose its role as a body which blesses American interventions. The ability of European states such as Britain and Spain to make their own foreign policy, outside the European Union, will be strengthened.
But the war does not have to be lost to produce quite a different result. If it lasts much longer than it is supposed to do, if it degenerates into civil war, if the fighting in Baghdad is bloody and chaotic and expensive, then the aftermath may look quite different. President Bush may be finished, along with Mr Blair and Nato. France and Germany will once again be the most important countries in the EU. The next US president will think twice before doing anything without UN approval, and the next British prime minister will think twice before involving himself in foreign adventures without the explicit permission of his European colleagues.
There is an analogy with Suez here, although it is not precise. If the lesson of Suez was that Britain can't do anything without America, the lesson of a botched war in Iraq will be that a British prime minister can no longer make foreign policy outside the confines of the EU or act in defiance of Germany and France. The stakes are high here, much higher than the mere political futures of Mr Bush and Mr Blair. It is disturbing to think how much damage Saddam's Iraq, even in defeat, might still be able to wreak.
Anne Applebaum is on the editorial board of the Washington Post
Blair invented the concept.
From an alternate universe... AP--3/15/03.
President Gore announced today that Special Envoy George Mitchell would leave Monday for Islamabad where he will hold his 48th meeting with the Afghan Foreign Minister. "We have made good progress in our negotiations with the Afghan government on our request to extradite Osama Bin Laden, and will continue to exhaust all diplomatic means of resolving the crisis", Gore said. When asked if he was considering using force if this round of negotiations with the Taliban should fail, the President said, "Of course all options are on the table. Our patience is not unlimited."
Gore also said he plans on presenting the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate for approval next week. "Global warming is still the most serious threat facing America and mankind".
I sure hope you are correct. I have a hard time trusting the spinners, and their ignorant followers, though.
Tony Blair has taken BIG heat in the UK for his staunch support of the U.S. in the War on Terror, especially on the latest rounds regarding the imminent Iraq War. He has remained resolute against the greatest political pressure imaginable. Even some in his own group have criticized him. His leadership in the Imminent Iraq War is to be lauded as a principled stand, imho . . .
Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
Excerpt:But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being.
I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural part of our democratic process. But I ask the marchers to understand this.
I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction.
If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started.
So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen, never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist none the less.
President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of England walk out to address the media in Cross Hall at the White House Nov. 7. "We've got no better friend in the world than Great Britain," said the President during his remarks. White House photo by Paul Morse.
Whether or not to go into bagdad and get sadam in the last gulf war was not colin powell's decision to make.
THANKS GENERAL POWELL!!!!!
(you schmuck)
I am glad that GW has men around him with differing views, and listens to them all before making his final judgement. All smart and successful presidents have done this. I do not think going to the UN will end up being a bad thing at the end of the day. I disagree with the writer that this has been a failed diplomacy attempt by the UK and USA. France, Germany, and most importantly, the UN, are the ones that stand to lose respect around the world.
I'm not familiar with the cronies and company that Blair keeps so I can't address that. But he seems to me to be taking a principled stand on the war. Wouldn't it be so much easier for him to succumb to the pressure from those in his political realm? Why would he risk his political life for such an antipodal and unpopular stance? That's not how clintoon did things (take a poll, lick finger and test which way the political wind was blowing). Not for the fun of it, I'm sure. Or maybe I'm just a little naive . . .
How is the churlish behavior of France and Germany embarrassing for the US and UK? It seems more like a diplomatic victory to me, since the UN has proven itself to be totally ineffective.
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.
