Posted on 03/06/2002 4:25:46 PM PST by vannrox
The Bush administration sees no particular virtue in seeking global consensus in its war on terrorism, because it has limited respect for governments whose opinions differ from its own, writes Julian Borger
Wednesday February 20, 2002
After all the talk, George Bush actually came face to face with the "axis of evil" today, peering into the demilitarised zone between South and North Korea, a frontier known in the president's increasingly Reaganesque rhetoric as "the line dividing freedom and oppression". Echoes of Ronald Reagan have reverberated through Mr Bush's week-long Asia tour, but never louder than at the DMZ.
It was Mr Bush's version of the former president's "tear down this wall" speech in Berlin 15 years ago, and White House aides have been advertising its iconic significance.
To heighten the anticipation Bush even described it as "one of the most dangerous places on earth".
The DMZ is at the same time one of the quietest places on the globe, and surrounded by the encouraging glow of some 37,000 US troops, it is one of the least challenging stops on the president's three-nation trip.
The visits to both Tokyo and South Korea were polite but strained by the hosts' uneasiness over the whole "axis of evil" idea.
The White House retinue toned down the oratory, and Bush went so far as to undertake not to attack North Korea, but on the other hand there is no doubt that this administration stands by its frank warnings to Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
In Seoul, President Kim Dae Jung was doubtless wondering what Bush had against him and his flagship "sunshine" policy of dialogue with the North.
Mr Bush chose Kim's visit to Washington nearly a year ago to declare an end to the Clinton policy of engagement with Pyongyang.
Then, just as Kim was reshuffling his government to prepare for a new diplomatic initiative, Mr Bush placed North Korea on the "axis of evil" list in his January 29 state of the union speech.
The Japanese, as aware as anyone in the region of the dangers posed by Pyongyang, had also invested hope in Kim's "sunshine" initiative.
Even before Bush arrived on Sunday, Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, had made it clear that he did not support the evil axis approach, and only endorsed it through gritted teeth when asked.
The private reservations expressed in Tokyo are likely to come out in public when Mr Bush arrives in China at the end of the tour.
Chinese officials have publicly cautioned the US against unilateral intervention in Iraq and will repeat those warnings to the president's face.
China's concerns over US interventionism are likely to have as much impact as Japan's and South Korea's - that is to say, none at all.
When the Europeans plead for caution, the Bush administration sees only lack of resolve. Privately, the president rails against spineless "European elites", the contemptuous phrase increasingly used in the conservative press to refer to European governments.
The decision to topple Saddam Hussein was based on pure national security calculations, almost in isolation of the views of the rest of the world.
Simply put, the Bush team decided in January that the very cause for extreme caution over Iraq was paradoxically the reason why action had to be taken sooner rather than later, this year rather than next.
Saddam's chemical and biological weapons render any assault on his bunker a perilous affair, but putting off an attack will only make it more dangerous.
The Iraqi dictatorship will have had more time to prepare. In a few years, it could even have a nuclear bomb.
Only Saddam's absolute and unconditional acceptance of international weapons inspectors could muffle the drums of war in Washington, as unfettered inspections could potentially wreak more damage on the regime's arsenal than weeks of bombing.
But for that very reason, the Iraqi dictator is unlikely to give the inspectors a free run. Washington has already declared its intention to topple him, and he surely knows his fearsome weapons are just about the only defences that make even the mighty Pentagon pause.
The most likely scenarios are either an Iraqi refusal to accept inspectors or an initial acceptance followed by a return to Baghdad's policy of "cheat-and-retreat" over site visits.
Either way, military action is all but inevitable by the end of the year, and the US central command has moved its service headquarters to the region in preparation.
The marines are going to Bahrain where the navy is already based. The army is in Camp Doha, in Kuwait, and according to unconfirmed reports the special operations forces are setting up in Oman.
The Saudi government is unlikely to allow the air force to use its state-of-the-art command centre at the Prince Sultan air base, but other Gulf garrisons could be pressed into service. Qatar is one option, increasingly mentioned in Washington.
The Iraq invasion plan drawn up by the US joint chiefs of staff envisaged an overwhelming force of 200,000 US troops.
That is now seen by military strategists as a pre-Afghanistan dinosaur. Smaller numbers of special forces troops, backing up trained and armed Iraqi opposition fighters are now viewed as the key prongs of an effective strategy that would minimise the vulnerability of US soldiers to chemical and biological attack.
The CIA and the Green Berets are already reported to have begun preparations for training Iraqi opposition guerrillas in Kuwait and Kurd-run areas of northern Iraq, and rival Iraqi opposition leaders have rushed to Washington to ensure they get a share of the arm-and-train budget.
Ahmed Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress, said he is planning to hold a conference of senior defectors from Saddam's officer corps next month, but there is already controversy over which generals will attend.
Some senior officers have denounced the conference as an attempt by Mr Chalabi to acquire some belated military legitimacy.
The row is just one of many squabbles between rival opposition leaders that have provided a constant headache for the Iraq desk at the State Department.
They also represent another important reason for caution. The risk of a post-Saddam Hussein implosion into chaos and fragmentation is as real now as it was 11 years ago, when the first President Bush passed up the opportunity to march to Baghdad.
His son's advisors believe that once the US shows the Iraqi population that it is determined to get rid of Saddam, viable alternatives will present themselves.
It is a strategy fraught with risk, but after September 11 risk no longer has a veto in the Bush White House.
This article will also appear in Guardian Weekly
The longer the FReepathon lasts, the longer you'll see me! Oh the horror! Donate now. Do it 'for the children.'
Go ahead, idiots. Keep comparing Bush to Reagan.
While I don't agree that Bush has reached that level yet, the leftists tend to forget that the majority of Americans love Reagan.
MY translation = Bush has the balls to take action against evil even if the Arab world does not agree. Nearly 3000 people were killed in NYC on 9/11 and we don't care what the rest of the world thinks, we are going to get these thugs.
Wrong. The VAST majority of Americans love Reagan. I think he is destined for Rushmore. Republicans are just waiting for him to die before nominating him. They'll wait for a Republican President, a Republican majority in both houses and this thing is done. Look at how Americans viewed Nixon when he died? Lines for days to pay respects. The media was beside themselves. If Clinton is lucky enough to survive another 20 years before being found facedown in a gutter, dead with syphillis, he'll be lucky if the local news van stops by for a 30 second spot. The smell of urine will be too strong to stay any longer.
That red and blue map during the last election is for real. If it weren't for decades-long massive vote fraud in Democrat controlled metropolitan areas and collusion with the media, the Democratic Party would be a footnote in the history books. Bush is popular because he loves his country and it shows. Bush and Reagan are leaders. Clinton was a taker. When a real, deathly threat resonates with the American masses, they grow up. Comparing Bush to Reagan is the biggest compliment the opposition could possibly serve up...and they don't even realize it.
Don't leave ANYTHING to liberals.
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.
