Realistic Expectations for Iraq

I believe that history will judge George Bush 41, Mikhail Gorbachev, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Helmut Kohl, Margaret Thatcher and François Mitterrand very kindly for the way they collectively took the Soviet Empire, which was tilted in the wrong direction for so long, and tilted it in the right direction, with barely a shot fired. That was one of the great achievements of the 20th century.

But security, although vital, is not enough to ensure stability. That requires reform. And while history provides plenty of examples of the dangers to absolutist regimes of attempting to reform, only that will ensure the long-term survival of the al-Saud.

As things stand, Saudi Arabia provides near laboratory conditions to incubate thousands of bin Ladens. The oil-dominated economy produces few jobs to employ a fast-growing, restless population. Neo-central planning inhibits investment, while getting Saudis into jobs now occupied by millions of foreigners raises costs because locals get paid, on average, three times more. School textbooks drip with religious bigotry, while technology exposes Saudis to the full blast of modernity. The stultifying control of the mosque and political grip of the security services underpin a bloated monarchy.

You and others insist on using the politically correct terminology of "multilateralism" vs "unilateral". This to me is idealistic "mumbo jumbo" especially when making really critical "life or death" decisions. Why do you think a corporation has a "CEO"? One person making the final decision??? In some situations, making decision by committee is a slow but sure road to failure. The Bush administration recognition that something was very rotten in the failure of France, Russia and Germany to support us in "liberating" Iraq and the same recognition that the UN was incapable of positive action caught most of the world off guard. Bush kept telling them that America would "go it" alone-----they didn't believe him. They have been embarrassed and exposed as self serving incompetents instead of statesmen serving the global community.

Adrian

You and others insist on using the politically correct terminology of "multilateralism" vs "unilateral". This to me is idealistic "mumbo jumbo" especially when making really critical "life or death" decisions. Why do you think a corporation has a "CEO"? One person making the final decision??? In some situations, making decision by committee is a slow but sure road to failure. The Bush administration recognition that something was very rotten in the failure of France, Russia and Germany to support us in "liberating" Iraq and the same recognition that the UN was incapable of positive action caught most of the world off guard. Bush kept telling them that America would "go it" alone-----they didn't believe him. They have been embarrassed and exposed as self serving incompetents instead of statesmen serving the global community.


Adrian does it really matter who does the "Tilting" as long as the result is positive even if it is less than what we sought initially.

Why, the then leader of the USSR is even in there.

That's what I would term "multilateral tilting" and I support the concept.

We haven't even begun to 'help' our Arab friends to democracy.....

Quote:

But security, although vital, is not enough to ensure stability. That requires reform. And while history provides plenty of examples of the dangers to absolutist regimes of attempting to reform, only that will ensure the long-term survival of the al-Saud.

As things stand, Saudi Arabia provides near laboratory conditions to incubate thousands of bin Ladens. The oil-dominated economy produces few jobs to employ a fast-growing, restless population. Neo-central planning inhibits investment, while getting Saudis into jobs now occupied by millions of foreigners raises costs because locals get paid, on average, three times more. School textbooks drip with religious bigotry, while technology exposes Saudis to the full blast of modernity. The stultifying control of the mosque and political grip of the security services underpin a bloated monarchy.

FT.com Opinion