Posted on 03/02/2003 1:07:38 PM PST by white trash redneck
The Iraq crisis has already pointed up a number of valuable lessons. So far I have identified five:
• Lesson I. We have been reminded that France is not to be trusted at any time, on any issue. The British have learned this over 1,000 years of acrimonious history, but it still comes as a shock to see how badly the French can behave, with their unique mixture of shortsighted selfishness, long-term irresponsibility, impudent humbug and sheer malice. Americans are still finding out--the hard way--that loyalty, gratitude, comradeship and respect for treaty obligations are qualities never exhibited by French governments. All they recognize are interests, real or imaginary. French support always has to be bought. What the Americans and British now have to decide is whether formal alliances that include France as a major partner are worth anything at all, or if they are an actual encumbrance in times of danger.
We also have to decide whether France should be allowed to remain as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, with veto power, or whether it should be replaced by a more suitable power, such as India. Linked to this is the question of whether France can be trusted as a nuclear power. The French have certainly sold nuclear technology to rogue states in the past, Iraq among them. In view of France's attempts to sabotage America's vigorous campaign to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we need to be sure that France is not planning to cover the cost of its flagging nuclear weapons program by selling secrets to unruly states. Certainly Anglo-American surveillance of French activities in this murky area must be intensified.
• Lesson II. Germany is a different case. The Germans are capable of loyalty and even gratitude. For many years Germany was one of the most dependable members of NATO. But the country is now very depressed, both psychologically and economically, with unemployment moving rapidly toward the 5 million mark and no prospect of an early recovery. With a weak, unpopular and demoralized government, Germany has been lured by France into a posture of hostility toward the Anglosphere, a posture that corresponds neither to the instincts nor the interests of the German people. Germany is a brand to be snatched from the burning; we must make a positive and urgent effort to win it back to the fold.
• Lesson III. The assumption, in many minds, seems to be that whereas individual powers act on the world stage according to the brutal rules of realpolitik, the U.N. represents legitimacy and projects an aura of idealism. In fact, more than half a century of experience shows that the U.N. is a theater of hypocrisy, a sink of corruption, a street market of sordid bargains and a seminary of cynicism. It is a place where mass-murdering heads of state can stand tall and sell their votes to the highest bidder and where crimes against humanity are rewarded. For many people the true nature of the U.N. was epitomized by the news that Libya, a blood-soaked military dictatorship of the crudest kind, is to chair the U.N. Commissionon Human Rights. It's people like Muammar Qaddafi who benefit from the U.N., who are legitimized by its spurious respectability.
Looking back on the last year, it is clear the U.S. should not have accepted Britain's argument that, on balance, the U.N. route was the safest road to a regime change in Iraq. In fact, going this way has done a lot of damage to U.S. (and British) interests and has given Russia, China and other powers the opportunity to drive hard bargains. President Bush should soon make it clear that, where his country's vital interests are concerned, the U.S. reserves the right to act independently, together with such friends as share those interests.
• Lesson IV. The split within NATO underscores the fact that in its present form and composition NATO is out of date. There is no longer a frontier to defend or to act as a trip wire; there is no longer a reason for the U.S. to keep large forces in fixed bases on the European continent--at great cost to the U.S.' balance of payments. These forces should be repatriated with all deliberate speed. There is obviously a need to have bases, which can be activated in an emergency, in states the U.S. feels can be trusted to honor their obligations.
Britain, which is not so much an ally of America as it is a member of the same family, will continue to serve as the geographical center of the Anglosphere and as America's offshore island to the Eurasian landmass. Other than that, the U.S. should put its trust in the seas and oceans, which offer a home and a friendly environment to its forces and do not change with the treacherous winds of opinion. The military lessons to be learned from the lead-up to the Iraq operation are profound, and all point in the same direction: America should always have the means to act alone, in any area of the globe where danger threatens and with whatever force is necessary.
• Lesson V. This last lesson flows from the fourth. The U.S. must not merely possess the means to act alone if necessary; it must alsocultivate the will. Fate, or Divine Providence, has placed America at this time in the position of sole superpower, with the consequent duty to uphold global order and to punish, or prevent, the great crimes of the world. That is what America did in Afghanistan, is in the process of doing in Iraq and will have to do elsewhere.
It must continue to engage the task imposed upon it, not in any spirit of hubris but in the full and certain knowledge that it is serving the best and widest interests of humanity.
I'm sure "Chiraq" sees himself as this century's incarnation of Richelieu.
Hopefully, such an overestimation on his part of his talent and abilities will have the usual consequences.
Tony Blair wanted UN approval, it's true. But his policy does not depend on UN approval. He just made that abundantly clear. And he held his majority in Parliament, despite the 122 Labour defectors. There is no way Blair will ever back away from his commitment to make war on islamic terrorism, even if it means becoming an ex-PM sooner than he'd planned.
The intervention in Somalia was disastrous for one reason only: Clinton. And concerning interventions in general, we have no choice. The islamist terrorist network operates through 160 countries and is determined to produce many more 9/11s for us. If we leave them and the states that sponsor them alone, we are dead in the water.
Clearly Blair's sticking with Bush but, when the idea of attacking Iraq first came up, I think Blair felt he'd need to see the effort made.
As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Somalia was we were involved at all. Same goes for Bosnia and Kosovo.
I don't share the enthusiasm for attacking Iraq. Nobody's been able to connect Saddam with AQ and the evidence is, in fact, that they're bitter opponents. North Korea is at least five years ahead of Iraq towards having a nuclear capability, has missiles which can reach Alaska, is working on missiles which can reach the West Coast and sells to anybody with the funds. We'd be far better off addressing the threat from NK than involving ourselves in the Middle East, an area which - except for the region's oil - isn't worth an American sprained ankle.
The book also documented something else not often talked about. This was the fact that Vichy French troop killed hundreds and wounded thousands of Allied soldiers and sailors during the North African landings in the name of French "honor" while they stood aside and allowed Germany to pour hundreds of thousands of troops into Tunisia without firing a shot to resist them. Disgraceful.
A book well worth reading.
Then why did Saddam give them a base of operations in his country?
When I was a student at the Army War College in the mid-80s we were briefed on Iraq's biological and chemical programs. They even had the name of the woman in charge of the program, nicknamed Dr. Bugs. Since then, nobody has been able to connect Iraq with exporting any of this stuff. Iraq is a buyer not a seller. North Korea is a seller to anybody with the price, which al Qaeda (and perhaps other terrorists) clearly has.
As for Germany, I don't share Johnson's hope for us to recover our previous relationship. In a country struggling with economic, crime, immigration, terrorism, and defense issues, Germany allowed itself to vote for a candidate who substituted any positive plans to turn the country around for one of pure anti-Americanism.
I also don't believe we should bring our troops home. I think we should move them from Germany into other eastern european countries who appreciate us more. I would hate the lose our logistics because we will surely need them in the future as most other nations are totally cowardly or impotent.
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.