The US, The UN and Iraq

Walter you are correct.

Blair is in an exquisitely difficult position. He has taken this country to the brink of an illegal war in support of a US president who (whatever one's personal opionion) is widely despised in Britain. He has done so by the executive use of the royal prerogative, denying the House of Commons a vote, and in the face of overwhelming hostility from his own party and the British people. His support comes from conservative opposition mps and a minority of his own. (But as there has been no vote, we don't know for sure).

If Bush takes us to war, Blair will follow. But Blair risks not only splitting his party and ending his prime ministerial career, but a full blown constitutional crisis.

The fire fighters are holding a series of strikes here. If the Army insist they need army personnel held in reserve to fight fires, to go to Iraq we could see the imprisonment of strikers, demonstrations getting out of hand, in short a full scale constitutional possibly even revolutionary crisis in Britain. You think us Brits are too polite to do such a thing? Have you seen what we do to foreign countries when our football team looses? (not me of course!).

I have great of respect for Blair. He clearly believes what he is doing is right, and to hell with the consequences. But instead of his fervency and zeal I just wish he employed a little more worldly cynicism, like the French perhaps.

Away now for a few days, but should be back before kick off.

A truly wonderful Post, Perception.

My experience was as a Naval Aviator, flying A-4s in deployments to the Tonkin Gulf in 1966, A-7Bs 1968, and later in Phantoms in 1971/72. I had two children when I left for the first tour and four at the time of the last. As a young man, quite full of himself, I was, like you, oblivious to the potential bad consequences - particularly to others - that may lie ahead. To some degree they already existed even apart from war. The Aircraft accident rate in those days was high enough to be a factor in one's daily life, and the social support system in squadron life compensated for it well enough. By the time of the third deployment, at a time when we had already accumulated many losses, some close friends, and the air war was at a particularly intense phase, my view was different. What had been a mixture of noble purpose, Lord Jim-like self awareness, professional validation, with just a bit of dread, became all dread and gritty determination to go on.

Just about the only remaining positive motivation was for the removal of the insane on again, off again restrictions of the Johnson/MacNamara years. You mentioned the madness of body counts. We had "livs and wiblics" as we called them: acronyms LVs & WBLCs = logistics vehicles and water-borne logistics craft", for trucks & boats. We also lost friends attacking active SAM sites after being denied permission to strike the same crated missiles stored in boxes in the sports stadium in Hanoi.

War is an ugly business. It should not be undertaken lightly. If it is necessary, it should be prosecuted as vigorously and quickly as possible, with well-defined goals and victory as the sole objective - something like tearing a bandaid off a hairy forearm.

I suspect defeat is an even better teacher than victory, and for that reason have fewer doubts about Colin Powel's views and analysis than others in the administration. Europe, however, is now approaching a two generation gap in any experience other than their peaceful coutinued and increasing prosperity - all under an umbrella of safety (necessarily) provided by the United States. The different views of the central European states now freed from Soviet oppression are a stark, and telling, contrast.

perception

What set of criteria do you wish to use to judge the success of a Secretary of State's tenure? If you make such a list, my suggestion would be to leave out ANY mention of relations with other states or international bodies/alliances as this would likely do mischief to any claim the present fellow (and administration) are humdingers at the game.

timber

Though I've kept it secret until now, I'll finally reveal that I am not a fan of this administration.

In a very very narrow sense, I hope he does continue to be persuaded by the 'get Sadaam' crowd because I think the project will be a disaster politically, financially, militarily (after the bombers and missles are done), and morally. And, with any luck (and truth in media, perhaps a utopian dream that one) these guys will go down in history as the ugly, arrogant, self-centered, manipulative and dangerous Machiavellians I think them to be. The religious right will become greatly disempowered in the party and in US political life, the present military-corporate dynamic will fall under more acute criticism, and the US will actually partner with other free nations, newly appreciative that they don't own the world. One can dream.

If, on the other hand, Bush or another voice within the administration pulls back from the present course, recognizing that the macho stance is not an instance of 'resoluteness', but some adolescent version of 'Dear God, please don't let anyone see me as being weak', and recognizing at the same time the huge dangers that attend the present course, and they sit down with the French/Germans/Russian/Belgians/Canadians - with the UN - and hammer out an utterly pervasive containment scheme along with human/civil rights mandates for the country and humanitarian solutions for the population (noting that a deadline for compliance is quite acceptable - but it might be a year, or five)...then Bush and his team might justifiably rise in the esteem of the squillions of us in the US and out who now think them very dangerous folks. Such a consequence would, I think, facilitate a landslide victory in 2004, and I really don't want to see that for a number of non-war related reasons. I do think, I truly do, that this administration unconstrained is a greater real threat to your liberties and to what makes America a hope for the world than is Sadaam constrained.

Perception -- It doesn't work out to be an "either/or" issue. Our MIC used the political situation of a country (the USSR) to feather its own nests. In order to justify its actions, it had to demonize the other side. There was plenty to demonize but not nearly enough to justify a costly military build-up and the up-sizing of a Department of "Defense" budget to the point at which it has remained... in peacetime... not for the good of the country (it costs us in tax raises and less money coming back to the states) but for the good of the manufacturers of military hardware and systems and the sufficiently corrupt military structure it serves (ah,those pricy toilet seats...!). Once the MIC figured out that demonization of communism made them money and gave them huge power, they went on to demonize other countries and leaders. So yes, Iraq is about oil. But it's also about profits made from military build-up and war. The US is now (justifiably in many ways) becoming the object of demonization on the part of other countries and subnational "terrorist" groups. Maybe we'll learn something from being demonized. Maybe we'll get honest. Maybe we'll separate the military from the industrial -- making it impossible for high-ranked military, defense secretaries and presidents to serve on corporate boards as advisors and consultants. Maybe we'll learn to separate Stalin from communism, George Bush from democracy, our imperial fantasies from reality on the ground. Maybe we'll remember the Gulf of Tonkin.

Timber: Already there has been a movement among Americans who believe in the UN to send it money as in the matter of family planning recently. I'd like to see more of that -- more direct support for the UN on the part of US citizens even as our possibly insane leadership moves us back into the dark ages of international relations. If I heard correctly this morning, Bush's poll numbers are at (approximately) 54% for general "popularity," 37% for "handling the economy," and 45% for "international policies."

Joanne: You're right of course. The talking heads (think tankers, academics, foreign policy experts) doing analysis after the UN session yesterday see the US as a rogue nation now in deep trouble with its former allies and in the process of doing great damage to existing treaties and alliances. What impressed me was that the talking heads, the usual mix of conservative and liberal, were in agreement for a change that the US has made a nasty mess.

I don't feel that I have too much to contribute on the US side of things. I wish that Steve had not gone off as I want to take issue with some of the points he raised regarding the UK view.

In my opinion the vast majority of Brits are apathetic (I don't include myself or I suspect Steve in this ) to the Bush Administration in the same way that we perceive most but not all in the US are pretty apathetic to the rest of the world.

I agree with Steve that Blair is in a difficult position, however he has been no less gung ho than Maggie Thatcher was when she was in power. In fact most of the press in the UK reckon that our Tony is rather more of a Tory than a Labourite. I believe that he is a fundamentally good man and has been let down by our civil service permeated system and the wrong type of spin doctors and advisers.

History has shown ( Chamberlain with peace in our time being an excellent example of this) that you have to stand up to a bully, whether he is doing it in his own backyard ( as Hitler was prior to invading Poland) and as Hussein is now and has been for the last 10 years or whether you do it in another country as Hussein did before Desert Storm.

I would argue that the determining issues have become clouded with this particular campaign by the clever use of subterfuge shown by Iraq and their playing of the liberal minded approach of most of the European leadership, the UN and NATO. The French and the Russians have too many commercial ties with Iraq to be unbiased and the Germans do not have an army worthy of the name, that coupled with the fact that the Germans have the highest unemployment they have had in many years mean that they are more worried about their own domestic affairs than a little thing like a third world war.

That notwithstanding to try to bludgeon through a fait accompli as appears to be the case with Bush et al does their cause no good and whatever happens there will be no winners out of this. There are many in Europe that agree with Blatham that Bush is more of a threat to world peace than the Husseins of this world, after all he has got the biggest gun and the most bullets.

I am for peace, however there are times when you just have to get rid of the big bad boy in the playground in order that you can once again have peace.

I would argue that the time for action should have been 10 years ago however I suspect that commercial issues dicated the lack of resolution at that time.

The fact that certain interest groups have used 911 and its aftermath to escalate the situation does not remove the fact that there are regimes capable of igniting a world wide cataclysm, North Korea actually worries me more and what about China, sitting cleverly on the fence ?

I think on balance the line has been overstepped and there is now no going back, war will happen, what worries me more is who will be in the charge of the playground when the dust settles and what will be inside their heads.

perhaps Mr Blair isn't quite the Bush poodle he has been preceived to be or perhaps we wishes to remain in power by listening to his constituency: Tony Blair urges more time for arms inspectors
15/02/2003 - 11:29:09

UN weapons inspectors will get more time to try to establish the truth about Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

So says Tony Blair in a speech to Labour's spring conference in Glasgow.

It's the British Prime Minister's first reaction to Hans Blix's crucial report on Iraq's arms programme.

hiama,

Thanks for what I believe is an excellent analysis of the present situation.

The U.S. policy with respect to Iraq certainly has its risks, and only history and the unfolding of events can tell us if they will be realized. I agree with you that we will almost certainly go forward, if for no other reason that the risks of going back from the present situation are far, far greater.

It is significant that our "friends" in France, Germany, and now Belgium have consistently chosen the most public and dramatic possible means of communicating their reservations to us. Though they often accuse the U.S. of acting without consultation with them, they have fully repaid us in this matter. There were many far more discreet ways for them to have done this. This strongly suggests to me that there may be more than just fraternal concern and disagreement in their motives. What it may be I don't know, but jealousy of U.S. power and the financial interests you cited come to mind.

If that is the case, then the behavior of these governments is truly contemptible. This suspicion is indeed afoot in the public mind in the states, and I believe it will be a long time before we forget it.

george says:



statements like that make me sad, very, very sad <sigh>

Busy day here. No time yet to read blatham and hiama, but I wanted to say Well Done to George. That was an excellent post.

Doesn't the world trend speak for itself? With Blair asking for the UN inspectors more time, doesn't that say something to GWBush and company? Are they so bone-headed that they cannot see and hear the world's voice for peace over war at this time? GWBush and company not only lose our allies, but a great number of the world's population to insist war is the only option. Will they learn? How many voices will they need to change their minds? c.i.

Thomas Paine would probably choose this opportunity to point out that the fact that we do not believe as "our allies" believe, proves that "our allies" do not believe as we believe, and this is all that it proves.

Thanks George

Bill W, I agree with you that it is very sad that we are in a position where it may indeed be better to go forward than backward.

To roll over and play dead is not an option. The sentiments inherent in the peace rallies in London today and the rest of the UK , as well as all over Europe coincide exactly with my own feelings about this whole situation, however if we allow evil dictators to commit genocide how can we reasonably live with ourselves, whatever the reasons that have suddenly accelerated the execution of these impending hostilities.

Having said that it may well be that the present interim measure just announced and referred to by dyslexia above of allowing UN Inspectors more time for inspection may well bring the necessary critical mass for this thing to finally explode one way or the other.

Let us all pray that the innocents in all this are spared and that it is all brought to a swift conclusion for the good of all who care for mankind and peace.

George

There are many suspicions afoot in the public mind, and that these countries have it right and the administration (and yourself) have it wrong is one of them. That the US is as questionably motivated as France or Germany or Belgium is another. My guess is, that if you wanted an objective opinion on France's behavior, you wouldn't likely turn to a fellow living in Lyon. Why would he turn to you?

But the more important question is....why should it/will it take you a long time to forget it? Why not just wear a tshirt that says 'it is a good thing to hold grudges for a long long time'.

Tres

Lovely quote from Paine.

I find it instructive and enlightening that Lawrence Eagleberger, the former Sec. Of State said that "if the French were polled in 1938 as to whether or not we should save Chechoslovakia from the Nazis, they would reply in the negative".

Those Francos, as well as a lot of others around the world and here, just don't get it.

George says, "I agree with you that we will almost certainly go forward, if for no other reason that the risks of going back from the present situation are far, far greater."

And I have to ask, Risks to whom? Upon examination it becomes clearer that the risk the administration is most sensitive to is the risk to its domestic political future, not the future of a region it apparently intends to invade without sufficient cause.

Bush got us into this situation; he ran political risks -- domestic and international -- when he moved the military into place before getting the casus belli and the support of allies in place. His personal political risks increase geometricallly if he has to pull back. Desperate personal skin-saving by putting whole regions at risk is not what responsible Americans should accept.

Bush is counting on our unwillingness to stop him. He's side-stepping and demonizing many of America's most tenacious allies to get his own way, imitating the bully in the schoolyard who "doesn't need friends." Well, he may not, but America does. I'm grateful that distressed former allies have begun to question his psychological equilibrium. I question it, too.

Any leader runs risks. Some pay off, some do not. History, not you nor I, will judge whether these risks worked out as Bush hopes.


I see tons of instances of our allies demonizing Bush. Show me one instance where Bush is demonizing an ally.

Tartarin,

The risks to which I was referring concern the safety and stability of the world. What will be the effect of a U.S. retreat on Iran? North Korea? Those are serious question that can effect many.

nowar nowar nowar nowar

Celebrating the worldwide rallies today and the amazing coverage on TV via CNN and on radio! I am so very proud to be part of the generation that made anti-war protest viable and effective. This day should mark an important halt in the US administration efforts to curry favor among US citizens AND global citizens. There is a saying "It doesn't play in Peoria" on one something about the "little old lady in Dubuque" - I am glad that all humanity on this day has a pause to reflect and a chance to turn the course towards OTHER measures than war.

nowar nowar nowar nowar