Posted on 01/18/2003 5:56:26 PM PST by Timesink
I hardly know anyone, and I doubt if you do, who is eager to join President George W Bush's war with Iraq. Before reaching an unpalatable conclusion, however, let us summarise some good reasons for having nothing to do with this adventure. The West is close to being engaged in a historic struggle with militant Islam which could dominate the first half of the 21st century, as the Cold War dominated the second half of the 20th. An invasion of Iraq will bring this closer.
The Administration in Washington has convinced itself that liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein will expedite a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us think the opposite. One of the most dangerous developments since the attack on the Twin Towers is that Israel's hawks have persuaded some influential Americans to equate the terrorists of al-Qaeda with the Palestinian suicide-bombers. The linkage is cultural, not political.
The US refusal to match an attack on Iraq with a show of opposition to the excesses of the Sharon regime on the West Bank seems one of the gravest weaknesses of American policy. But the British Government, which espouses this view, has so far entirely failed to persuade Washington of its validity.
Prof Sir Michael Howard has likened a US attack on Iraq as part of its campaign against terror to a man who loses a gold ring in a dark alley, and goes searching for it on the road under the street lights because he can see better there. Fighting al-Qaeda demands a long, unglamorous struggle dominated by intelligence and diplomacy. Invading Iraq provides an opportunity to deploy American military power to maximum effect, but is irrelevant to combating Muslim terrorism.
America appears to lack any credible policy for the future of Iraq after deposing Saddam. In Afghanistan the US has shown its profound distaste for long-term involvement in nation-building. Yet Washington now proposes to assume responsibility for a society riven by fundamental divisions.
All these seem substantial objections to starting a war. Yet set against them is an overwhelming reality: the United States is determined to fight. President Bush and Tony Blair claim that the die is not cast, that Saddam Hussein still has an opportunity to escape nemesis. No one in the military or political loop on either side of the Atlantic believes them. It is inconceivable that the Americans and British could have staged a build-up of forces in the Gulf on the present scale without intending to use them. The Labour Party is venting its distress about British involvement when the time for argument has passed. If Britain now withdrew its contingent unilaterally from the invasion force, US anger would be unrestrained.
There are grounds for suggesting that Mr Blair has single-handed engaged Britain in a commitment to conflict that should have been endorsed by the House of Commons before British forces were deployed. That is a legitimate, perhaps grave charge against an imperial prime minister. But it is now history. Remember the frightened young soldier in that peerless film Zulu? "Why us?" he demands, as the black hordes sweep down upon Rorke's Drift. "Because we're here, lad," says the doughty colour-sergeant. We, the British, are here in the Gulf today. If we piled arms now, in American eyes we would look not merely ridiculous, but treacherous.
I asked a military friend a while ago how much the Americans have been telling us about their plans. After a pause, he said: "As much as I would expect, given that the United States is capable of doing anything it likes, anywhere in the world, without any military help from us. We shall be there simply to provide political cover."
The US today possesses unchallengeable military supremacy, of a kind the world has never seen. Some over-influential hawks in Washington perceive a prospect of exploiting this to bring democracy and freedom to societies all over the world. Their vision seems dangerously ambitious. Should we respond by simply separating ourselves from the US, and leaving Washington to do as it chooses, while we sulk on the touchline? The only prospect of influencing US policy rests upon working with America. The Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have presented a pitiful spectacle since September 11.
All attempts to forge a credible European defence have foundered upon Europe's refusal to spend even a fraction of the money that would be needed. I have been among those who passionately wanted to see Europe develop a credible defence identity, and have been brutally disillusioned by the behaviour of our partners. France is the only nation beside Britain which takes defence seriously. There are strong indications that the French will reluctantly fall into line with the US over Iraq for the same reason as ourselves: because the alternative is to sacrifice all influence upon US policy.
Mr Blair can claim credit for persuading the Bush Administration, strongly against its own instincts, to "go the UN route" over Iraq. There is a real chance that a new UN resolution will be passed, sanctioning the use of force against Saddam. This would reconcile many doubters to war.
Mr Bush and Mr Blair have made a miserable job of explaining their purposes in Iraq, because of the continuing confusion between regime change and disarmament as an objective. I have no doubts that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction. But no one in Washington has yet expounded a coherent vision of the ground rules of the new world, in which unsuitable people are to be denied unacceptable weapons. US policy, as explained so far, appears to reflect the visceral instincts of Mr Bush, rather than any comprehensible legal framework.
We are left by default to assume that possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, India and Pakistan is acceptable, while by Iraq or North Korea it is not. A rational argument can be made about this, but it has not been presented yet. It is about time somebody set about it. I feel deeply uncomfortable about war against Iraq, but I now see no alternative to British participation. This is scarcely a dignified intellectual position. But the alternative, a decisive breach with the US when the West faces grave threats to its security, seems too painful to contemplate. I suspect Mr Blair thinks the same.
Not only does Mr. Hastings lump India and Israel in with a rogue state like Pakistan, but thinks we should go after every terrorist-harboring country all at once.
I'm glad he's just a scribbler.
yet, somehow, devoid of a reasonable and objective analysis regarding the absolute failure of the UN as a world organization, and to place blame where it should be placed.
At the feet of POTUS 42, and his cowardly, limp wristed, weak response to Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Of course there's a choice!
What he really means is, he doesn't like it, but it's the best choice.
I hate that expression, because it's wrong on its face ("we have to do A instead of B, because there's no other choice"--but you're assuming A and B are both possible choices)
“America appears to lack any credible policy for the future of Iraq after deposing Saddam.”
Gee, I didn’t know that Bush made the post Iraq policy public. Must have some inside connections or something. What an idiot!
How about this? Iraq and North Korea have a desire to use such weapons towards the U.S., if they think they can. Israel, India, and Pakistan do not. (Though in the case of Pakistan, that's potentially a coup d'etat away from changing.)
We regret to inform you that the "historic struggle with militant Islam" has been underway since 1979. 9/11 and GWB just ensured we'd wake up and smell the coffee they been brewin' for the last couple of decades.
His heart was never in that war like it was in his war against the Serbs who he enjoyed bombing, but he had to have some kind of war to keep Monica's testimony off the front pages and interesting none of the old hippies were out protesting the Clintons wars.
The linkage is they're terrorists! Get it???
And if you think very hard, you might be able to figure out why that is.
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.