George's big mistake was to listen to Tony

dailytelegraph.co.uk ^ | 16/03/2003 | Anne Applebaum

[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

[Grampa Dave]

Jim posted, "Bush is not the guy making the mistakes. Saddam made a huge miscalculation. France (and the UN) made a bizarre decision, turning their backs on the U.S. to back terrorism. Screw France. Screw the UN. The bombing starts in five days. The UN is hereby and forthwith totally irrelevant. God Bless America!"

The usual rush to blame GW ignores the realities of what Jim pointed out above.

Also, we will not only see regime change in Iraq, Iran will experience regime change from within shortly after Saddam leaves or becomes misty red proto plasm. France and Germany will enter severe recessions which will bring regime changes there.

Assad will do something stupid, and the IDF will cleanse him and his thugs from Syria. The IDF and Christians in Lebannon will free that country from the terrorism/tyranny financed by Iran.

These so called delays have awaken middle America to the dangers of the UN. The UN is now irrelevant.

A little sidebar. This war actually started in February with 500+ air sorties per day, and a lot our guys and Brits with boots in Iraqi sand. When this thing starts, Saddam will immediately lose a large part of Iraq as mayors and locals will kill his people and join the battle. We will read about how the war started at least in February if not before after it is over.

[WestTexasWend]

You're right about Powell's loyalty (publically, anyway) and the administrations need for "balance" (especially at State, Dept. of Handholding/Handwringing)... and his "conversion" on Iraq played well for awhile. But he was the weak link in '91, and since the UN obstructionists refused to follow him on regime change he's the weak link again. Is it a role of his own making, or one he's been ordered to play?
It might have been a good gamble on Bush's part, and anything that devalues the UN is welcome, but as things stand now the bet didn't pay, and history will remember Powell as a kink in the hose.

[Brian Allen]

<< I'm not familiar with the cronies and company that Blair keeps ..... >>

His closest ideological allies and bosom buddies [And those among whom he must retain "political credibility" include, individually, such avowed enemies of Liberty and Our Nation as Javier Solana, "Hong Kong Chris" Patten, Jaques Chiraq, Gerhardt Schroeder, Yasser Daschle, Guy Verhofstadt, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Jerry Adams, et al and, collectively, NATO, the EU, the IRA and the vast criminal enterprise also known as the British Labour Party.

Any of those ring a bell?

Best ones -- Brian

[MeekOneGOP]

Got it. . .

[Destro]

What escapes most of the rabble is that Blair is motivated, as a convinced Third Wayst Leftists, in perpetuating the one worldisim if the neo-liberals. This group, (who had American like Strobe Talbott proclaim that sovereignty would no longer matter in the near future and their would be one world govt.) only differ from neo-cons in that while the neo-cons want the same thing they want America's hegemony as the seat of this one world govt. The third-wayists want the UN as the govt. of this one world system.

That is why Blair is gung-ho for this. He has operated on the premise that the US would push along this one worldisim by acting as the world's police man for the UN. The Neo-cons gladly go along because they also want America as the worlds controller whose power comes from the White House (no congressional oversight need apply) and not the UN security council. But since both sides needed each other off to the UN they went at first...

Both neo-con and neo-liberal views are dangerous and a threat to the constitution of the USA as I know it.

[Hugin]

That term "neo-con" gets thrown around a lot, without any real definition. It is generally used as a perjorative for a) Jewish conservatives, or b) any conservative who is a nationalist and believes that in the modern world the best defense is a strong offense, and that we should stand up for friends and allies around the world. I'm in the latter group, so if that makes me a "neo-con", so be it.

[Hugin]

Colin Powell screwed up in 1992 by letting Saddam off the hook.

Powell was one of many advisors to the president. The buck stopped and the desk of G.H.W. Bush, who takes full responsibility for the decision. As he says, every other leader in the middle-east told him Saddam would not last a month, and urged him to stop. While hindsight is 20-20, I have to say I believed it was wrong at the time and still do. Having made the case that Saddam was a modern-day Hitler, stopping short of his removal was like if the US had stopped at the Rhine in 1945. However the point is there were others besides Powell urging Bush41 to stop, and ultimately it was his decision, not Powell's.

[Destro]

I described what a neo-con is--a neo-con is an internationalist. The neo-cons want America's hegemony as the seat of this "one world govt." The third-wayists want the UN as the hegemon of this one world system.

Ethnicity and religon have nothing to do with it and some of the biggest neo-cons are blue-blooded charter W.A.S.P.s.

[MeekOneGOP]

Javier Solana, "Hong Kong Chris" Patten, Jaques Chiraq, Gerhardt Schroeder, Yasser Daschle, Guy Verhofstadt, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Jerry Adams

Afterthought: Regarding the 'U.S. citizens' on that list, do you notice that Tony Blair offers MUCH more support to President Bush than they do? (In fact they are breaking the tradition of not opposing the Prez on foreign affairs 'criticism stops at the border'). Also, do you notice that I didn't refer to them as 'Americans?' . . .

I'd take Blair over any of them regarding the War on Terror . . .

[Hugin]

The neo-cons want America's hegemony as the seat of this "one world govt."

None of the people commonly referred to as neo-cons fit that definition. They want America to be unequaled in power, and act in it's own interest when needed. They believe in working with other countries when it fits our national interest, but not allowing us to be hamstrung by them. But one world government? Nonsense. There is nothing to back up such a claim. To the contary, the so-called neo-cons are nationalists, not internationalists.

[Brian Allen]

<< I'd take Blair over any of them regarding the War on Terror . . . >>

Well ....

Except for any and/or all of the others, me too. For I believe Blair's totalitarian agenda and dual commitment to the destruction of Britain's Sovereignty and to the simultaneous advancement of the Brussells-based Neo-Soviet trumps everything else he does.

Further, I contend that his every political and other action -- and that the fact he simultaneously talks out both sides and the middle of his mouth to different parties [Most of whom are such of his own kind as those previously mentioned: Javier Solana, "Hong Kong Chris" Patten, Jaques Chiraq, Gerhardt Schroeder, Yasser Daschle, Guy Verhofstadt, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Jerry Adams et al] -- and only one of whom is President Bush marks him as devious and duplicitous, at best -- or a con-man -- and screams so loudly as to in any case drown out everything he says.

This time though, Blair's ruling agenda appears to have finally caught up with him, in that, having, at the cost of God alone knows how many unecessary casualties among American and our Allies Forces, caused the required action against Iraq to have been delayed too long while he consulted the cave full of thugs on the East River -- and having, at the same time, thoroughly enraged most of his dead and decadent EURO-peon comrades, he has now had to chose among all of his conflicting positions for the one upon which to be seen to act -- or to offer the appearance of taking action.

Hence the charade of moving British soldiers here and there but neither properly motivating them nor providing them adequate support and/or battlefield mobility.

Are any consolations likely? Well, for one, Blair's European partners in crime seem so thoroughly pissed off with him that once great British Nation might yet be saved from subjugation to the Brussells-based Neo-Soviet. [EU] And we can and must pray that Saddam has not exploited Blair's delays to the Iraqi Invasion in ways that will cost the lives of too many of Our Armed Forces and of our Allies.

Best ones -- Brian

[Joe Hadenuf]

There is nothing to back up such a claim. To the contary, the so-called neo-cons are nationalists, not internationalists.

Really? Then why does the Republican party routinely ignore the epic invasion of millions of illegals that are entering our country at will, unabated? Why do both of the beltway parties ignore this escalating crisis and national disgrace? Our borders have become a national embarrassment, and now a national security time bomb.....What have they done about it?

It would seen to me that a true nationalist would at least protect their borders and sovereignty, to prevent this wide scale fraud, crimes and the bending weight that is sure to collapse our social services.

True nationalist? LOL!

[ApesForEvolution]

I find it quite hilarious that the strict rules of the united States' Senate are more 'religiously' adhered to than the Constitution of these same united States.

[ApesForEvolution]

"To the contary, the so-called neo-cons are nationalists, not internationalists."

I strongly disagree. First exhibit would be Red communist china. Neo-cons want international free trade regardless of all other factors.

[Destro]

the definition you gave was that of a hegemon. The govt in controling authrity would be ours of course.

[Paulus Invictus]

You all must remember that Britain is a socialist nation and has been for years. If you want a taste of their brand of the far-left ideology, all you need is a stay in London for a week or two. The trade unions run the government and the people in charge are as close to being communists as you will find anywhere.

Our daughter lives there and recounts the madness of the National Health Services, you know the kind of socialistic health service that the Clintons tried to impose upon us. They haven't given up yet and making the US into a Britain-like socialist republic is still the goal of all RATS.

[wardaddy]

I blame Colin.

[whadizit]

I certainly agree with that! Blair's domestic policies and those of his party are the exact opposite of what America is all about. However, his position on Iraq is quite startling for a socialist.