The US, The UN and Iraq

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&u=/nm/20030217/ts_nm/iraq_nato_dc_60



Could France be facing greater isolation? Has Gallic pride left them alone? Can France stand alone? Of the three questions, only the last has an indisisputable answer.



timber

timber, I do not believe France will face isolation. They might have problems in the future if all they do is create deadlock for the sake of deadlock - to show they have political power. That will be their own undoing, but it would depend greatly on the issue. c.i.

the rest of the story:

Let me put it this way; if my siblings and your siblings were living in Iraq, I'd try my best to find a peaceful solution, before I'd even consider starting a war. If, however, Iraq struck at me first without any provocation, all bets are off, and we can do almost anything to defend ourselves. c.i.

Peace for our time! The following is from an article by Alistair Cooke. It is something to think about!



Peace for our time by Alistair Cooke



I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgment on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise. But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over. And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day-mare, if you like. Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land. There was a move to urge that Mr. Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat." He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down. This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler. The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered. "Oh dear," said Mr. Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."



During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me - every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners. Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland. Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot. It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace." The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives- a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease." In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.



At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword. After all the Rhineland was what it said it was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it? Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it. I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety. And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press. The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation". They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied. But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"



In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security. Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force. The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia). The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons- the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace. But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanized army and superior air force. But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested. Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the saviour.



Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me. I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one. It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003.

The only difference today is that the UN inspectors are in Iraq, the US and British are controlling the skies beyond the No Fly Zone, and the world "IS" watching Iraq. They have taken control of no other land. Their military is but a skeleton of what is was before 1991. But more importantly, they "are" surrounded by the most modern military power in the world. c.i.

... and, Cicerone, Alastair Cooke is an old Tory airhead...

So my first question to Mr Cooke is, who do you think Iraq will conquer first? c.i.

I would add to the above post---The UN has no Army or Police force and no Authority to gather one nor the will to use it if it had one.

How can the UN be viewed by most of you as our savior against the criminals of the would as Tartarin has blatantly said they would if only the US would subjugate it's citizens to the will of the UN.

Timber - the only remaining uncertainty concerns Tac Air ops out of Turkey; they would facilitate surveillance and targeting of high value, mobile, time-critical targets.

But early March is feasible with or without the Turks - who are holding out for an extra $ 50 billion on the not unreasonable grounds that their friends the Israelis got more than 20 times as much over the years without even providing bases. With friends and allies like those, the specter of national bankruptcy is of greater concern than Saddam.

As to Alistair Cook: some charitable soul might send him a map before he embarasses himself further. NONE of Saddam's neighbors (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) fears an invasion, and ALL of Hitler's neighbors did.

an analogy comparing present day Iraq with pre-war Germany(Hitler) is spurious at best. Perhaps a better analogy would be the US invading Panama with Iraq invading Kuwait.

timber

As an accomplished yodeller and enviably beautiful skier, I too require bad weather transport. And a good little Japanese or German front wheel drive has yet to fail me. I could, were I to fall into the mood, surmount the Alps, take Rome, and return to Carthage with three dark complexioned maidens, each comfortable seated. True, my gravel capacity is meagre and snowdrift resettlement must wait for some man with a larger thing. Together, who knows what you and I could accomplish ethically? (It occurs to me as I write this that I have no idea what I might accomplish ethically)

Well, France isn't represented in this committee, since years now.

If this is an isolation - okay.
But you must remind that they did it themselves, volunrarily, now - I think - about 35 years back.
(!966 it was, as far as remember.)

Referring to various reports, I quote the BBC:
"After the announcement of Sunday's breakthrough at Nato, France, Germany, and Belgium said in a statement that the agreement did not "in any way prejudge ongoing efforts" to resolve the crisis through the UN.

The three countries, "underline that the use of force can only the last resort and that all options (...) have as yet been fully exploited," the statement adds."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2769905.stm

It has been already said: the war may be short and easy, but the time afterwards ...

"The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials.

The Kurds say the decision resulted from pressure from US allies in the Middle East who fear a war will lead to radical political change in the region.

The Kurdish leaders are enraged by an American plan to occupy Iraq but largely retain the government in Baghdad. The only changes would be the replacement of President Saddam and his lieutenants with senior US military officers."

Kurdish leaders enraged by 'undemocratic' American plan to occupy Iraq

Perception stated that:
"Thugs and psychopaths NEVER
conform to reason and logic. "

Then WE, the enemy, must be
included amongst the ranks of thugs
and psychopaths mentioned here;

Because WE refuse to conform to the
"reason and logic" of our neighbors
in the United Nations. This council has
a unique capacity which politicals
can never possess - they have the
greater gift of OBJECTIVITY. The
majority of the UN council has the gift
of seeing this situation without the
following fears to lose sleep over;
1. fear of losing something they already have, or
2. fear of not getting something they want

Very nicely stated, Babsatamelia.

A mainstream media source -- the Washington Post, no less -- came close to identifying the single greatest cause for the rapid loss of US credibility around the world, growing, virulent anti-American sentiment, and failure to win international cooperation in dealing with the Iraq problem: George W. Bush's lack of competence as a global leader.

The media often attribute the increasing resentment against the US to its status as the "only remaining superpower." But it was the only remaining superpower throughout the Clinton era, when fragile alliances were built and strengthened, not demolished in less than two years. The outpouring of goodwill toward the US after 9/11 was a product of those years of skilled, qualified leadership.

This past weekend's protests --where millions of people around the world marched against invasion--were a testament to the foreign policy failure of the Bush administration.

Wash. Post: Forceful Tactics Catch Up With U.S.

It would be interesting to know why NATO even bothered to take the question of positioning AWACS aircraft and defensive missile systems in Turkey to its political council, where France was sure to oppose it. This kind of question has historically been resolved in the Military committee which yesterday agreed to the deployment.

It would also be interesting to know why Germany and Belgium changed their positions in the Military committee while France was absent.

It is a bit early to either draw conclusions about the merits of this or that policy on the matter of Iraq. There are many things afoot that none of us likely knows. Events are also moving fast and the outcome, though not yet certain, is that Saddam's regime will fall. It is clear, however, that if the situation was left to the UN and our Western European allies, nothing at all would have been done about it.

"Nothing" presumably includes no war. That can only be good. Nothing at all good comes of war.