Awkward Questions On War

James

It would appear that we are pretty much in agreement.

The two nations that are most willing and able to 'kick in the door', in order to deal with the world's trouble spots, were at the forefront of the Iraq war. Namely the US and UK, (Along with support from Australian and Polish special forces).

I doubt that the UN will ever reach the point of being able to agree, on a consistant basis, with the use of military force in various trouble spots around the world. While Nimh's view of the world is the ideal, the reality is more of a compromise. But I think a compromise involving the US / UK military, is much more preferable to some of the alternatives. Imagine if the US / UK withdrew their support from the UN. What military powers would take their place? How impartial and unbiased, are the alternatives? I won't name names....I will let everyone imagine the wonderful possibilities!!

I know some countries are highly critical of the US and UK, and their war in Iraq. But next time they are invaded, or have a coup etc etc, and they need someone to come to their rescue, I doubt that they will complain if it's US / UK forces that arrive to help them. That tends to be the case. I forget the exact number of countries around the world in which UK soldiers are working on 'peacekeeping' roles. It's around a few dozen. For a small nation, the UK does it's share, or more than it's share, of providing military support to other nations. I imagine the US probably does quite a bit too! If the rest of the world was more able (Or willing), to do likewise, it might ease the burden on the UK - our military is to say the least streatched, with all their responsibilities around the world. Perhaps our friends in the UN may like to pull their weight a little more.....or else appreciate the help that they get from others!

While I am aware that other nations do supply military assistance to the UN, the reality is, when the crap really hits the fan....we all need the US military, due to it's size. Without it, the UN doesn't really have much of a credible alternative to deal with a full scale war...or 'wars'. Everyone better get used to the idea! Call the US an empire if you wish, but as with the former British empire, despite it's faults, one nation tends to dominate in the world, and we just have to hope it's a mainly benevolent giant, rather than a evil monster.

I appreciate and acknowledge the comments of everyone who discussed the United Nations issue -- and perhaps these next few sentences sum up my problem with what is happening.

There is no way the United Nations will ever have the power and authority to actually function in the way it was intended without the very pointed cooperation of the members -- especially the most powerful nations.

George Bush and company -- not only have NOT cooperated, they have actually undermined the United Nations -- making it weaker, not stronger and less able, not better able to function the way we want it to.

We have done the United Nations -- and the world a huge disservice here.

To Nimh (for your sig) and Stinger (for where you live), as a person with a deep love and interest in Ireland (honeymooned there, family there), I am curious as to your thoughts post-Iraq regarding Ireland. It seems clear that Blair expects 'tit for tat' for supporting the US in Iraq, when not many nations would, to take out the IRA....this frightens me a bit. What do you think?

You are right about how the UN depends - alas - on the willingness of its most powerful members to back up its decisions with the necessary military means. What happens now is basically that the member nations send its troops as a kind of 'hired soldiers' to the mission of the community as a whole. As a precedent for co-operation - for the acceptance that it is in the interest of each to contribute its part to the collective effort - for the notion of a 'world community' per se - I think this is a hopeful thing, but ideally I'd hope for a more institutionalised, consistent military back-up for UN actions, less dependent on this or that country's political decision. As it is, if the US and UK withdraw, the effectiveness of the UN is indeed fiercely weakened.

Yet this is what I see as having already happened, these past months. The US and UK have withdrawn from the UN - they have decided to bypass the source of legitimacy it represents, and accord themselves the right to determine what should be done, how and when, when it comes to interpreting and acting on past UN resolutions.

That is not how it can work. The deal the US seems to be presenting on the UN now (and that you seem to be echoing), is that the UN can remain relevant - if it just realises that it depends on the US/UK and thus can not afford to fall foul of the common decisions of these two countries. But the very notion of a United Nations is that here, nations come together to come to common decisions. Compromise is a given conditionality for it even to have a right to existence.

Either you accept that the UN needs to exist, and that it is, in this imperfect world, the ultimate source of international legitimacy - but that includes accepting that, just sometimes, you may not get your way in international politics, simply because others dont agree with you. Or you regress into the nationalist powerpolitics that accepts no authority over that of national government, and claims for the latter to have the absolute ultimate authority to do whatever it wants, wherever in the world it wants to. The in-between suggestion, implying that the UN can keep on being the source of international legitimacy as long as any US/UK move is authorized by definition - on the virtue of these countries' military contribution, ergo, by virtue of these countries military resources - would truly make the UN irrelevant. The US case on the ICC - we're all for institutions administrating international justice, as long as the guarantee is given beforehand that no American will ever be judged there - is a bad precedent. Nobody needs a figleaf for US hegemony, and the UN wouldnt survive if it would accept such a role.

This sounds nice, but I'd appreciate, to put it rhetorically, a list of countries rescued from their putschists and invaders these last, oh 15 years or so, by "the US/UK forces". Because of the "that tends to be the case" quip suggesting they usually are, and all that. Perhaps in comparison with the list of coups and invasions where such liberation failed to materialise.

Not because I would like to claim that other countries have done more - noone can, obviously, because its not true. Rather to simply point out that when it comes to playing the world's policeman, the US hasnt quite at all proven it could do a better job unilaterally than UN multilateralism did before. It has come to the rescue of a very select few cases, and many here would submit the selection indicates not so much a succesful fervour in upholding democracy and national sovereignty in the world as rather well-considered national interest. And the UN isnt there to rubberstamp the military implementation of national interest. Hence its laudable exercision of its right to clearly indicate when it considers a member country's military endeavours unwarranted and unjustified, as, I believe, 11 out of 15 Security Council members did in the case of America's rush into the Iraq war.



True.



In terms of pulling weight it should be pointed out that peacekeeping and post-war reconstruction doesnt just need soldiers; it needs money, too. The US has been the single worst debtor to the UN in the world for many years now, with outstansing due payments running up to billions of dollars, I believe, which greatly obstructs the work the UN has been requested to do per SC resolution.

The military input of UK and US forces is, in fact, truly appreciated. But the US/UK military action in Iraq isn't, no - for the obvious reason that it isnt necessarily seen as "help" for their work by "our friends in the UN" - considering they see this war as the contravention of UN decision-making, as an illegal adventure courtesy solely of US/UK national decisions. Whether the war in question ends achieving the goals of the warring parties in question is irrelevant to the matter. Why should the UN appreciate the US spending billions on a war the UN never wanted in the first place?



"One nation" rarely "tends to dominate in the world" - there have been few instances in history when it did, and usually it didnt end well. The world tends, in fact, to be multipolar - hence the unease about the looming US hegemony. Should it keep looming, I would rather not merely "hope" it'll remain a "mainly benevolent giant" - I tend to feel ill at ease about surrendering to powerful neighbours with nothing much more than an expression of trust in my hands, like most people do on this side of the Channel - and we've been proven justified, historically, in this unease. Since the US has a rather mixed record on the matter of respecting other countries' democracies, human rights and national sovereignty there is no less call for such unease in the case of a US hegemony.

Instead of gambling on blind trust, I would prefer the international community to strengthen supranational institutions and work on ways to effect further forms of multilateral consensus, that together would 'persuade' the US to return to being part of an international community - rather than trying to command it from outside. It will be in its own interest as well, because - as the British empire has had to experience in the end as well, hegemony tends to provoke a rather violent backlash, and more 9/11s is the last thing the US wants.

Frank

I'm glad you have enjoyed / appreciated the thread, and the comments made by everyone. (My thanks to everyone as well!).

I think your comments regarding Bush and the UN, could equally apply to a number of nations, not just now, but over a number of decades.....or perhaps since day one of the UN. Which is basically my point. While I would like to see a truely 'united', United Nations, I really can't see it happening for a considerable period of time.....if ever! Whenever an issues arises, someone always feels a veto or a 'no' vote is required, since the actions desired by many nations at the UN, always appear to conflict with the economic / political / strategic goals of one of the more powerful member states.

I just want our country to back the United Nations. We started as a conglomerate of many individual states -- tenuously joined in a confederation of sorts.

We discovered the value in unification.

We should be able to export that discovery.

But first we have to re-learn what we have forgotten.

Nimh

Some brief responses to your points.

How many superpowers are there in the world today? One. It's not exactly 'multipolar' today. That's nothing new.

A few random examples of domination from history - Rome, Alexander of Macedonia, the British Empire etc.


Some 'select' cases of the USA / UK acting as the 'world's policeman', coming to the rescue of other nations. Afghanistan, Iraq, the recent conflict in the Balkans (several countries), Sierra Leone, defending Western Europe during the Cold War while confronting the Eastern Bloc.....and from history........eh...... World War One and World War Two. No thanks necessary, we were glad to help!

Even when the Nazis had most of Europe, and were standing on the edge of the English Channel, staring over the water at the UK, what nation stood alone in Europe, but continued to fight, not only to defend itself but to defeat Nazisim? What other nation joined the fight? People can be cynical about the motivations of the UK / US government, but the simple fact is that the US and UK have often done 'the right thing', in order to help others. Even when an easier option was available....such as doing a deal with Hitler. You can be grateful that the UK had an individual such as Winston Churchill, because there were others in positions of power in the UK, who actually considered a pact with Hitler.

People can accuse the US / UK governments of acting in a cynical, self serving manner, but that doesn't explain the willingness of the public to support military action on behalf of other nations. Action that endangers the lives of our soldiers. Sitting back and waiting indefinitely on nations such as France or Russia to make a moral decision, when a situation obvioulsy requires immediate action, isn't in the psyche of the average Brit, and probably not in the forefront of the minds of some Yanks either! But if you are happy to wait on UN diplomacy to take effect, that's fine. I just hope your life isn't in danger while you are waiting months or years for the UN to come to your rescue!

Meanwhile, a lot of people in the US and UK are running out of patience with the UN.



cavfancier

At most, Blair will only want some political support from Bush, with regards the Northern Ireland peace process. We are in the 'end game' phase of our process, when groups such as the IRA are under increasing pressure from the British and Irish governments, as well as political parties in Northern Ireland, to make a once and for all decision and statement, on the direction it intends to go - Terrorism or politics? Peace or violence?

At present, the IRA and it's 'political wing' (Sinn Fein) have been ambiguous about it's intentions and it's willingness to refrain from violence in the future. It was hoped that the IRA would clarify it's position this week, but a statement that it provided to the two governments (As yet not made public) appears to have fallen short of what is required. Without a clear, unambiguous statement of intent by the IRA, including something along the lines of 'The war is over', some other political parties are unwilling to re-enter the Northern Ireland Assembly with Sinn Fein, since there have been several controversial incidents in the past couple of years, that have raised questions about the IRA's willingness or ability to refrain from illegal activites, in various parts of the world.

There would appear to be at least two factions in the IRA. One that is willing to escape from the past, and one that is still trapped in the past. Until they make up their minds, then the peace process may have to remain on hold. Or alternatively, we may reach a point that people get tired of waiting, and move on without them.



Frank

In an ideal world we would be united, but I just can't see it happening to the extent that we would like. It's not a perfect world. Too many cultural differences, too much history, too many agendas, too much human nature to contend with.

I somehow knew you'd be making those parallels and perhaps thats why I was so insistent: for Rome and Alexander of Macedonia "dominated in the world" only if your world consists of Europe and the Levant. Which is striking, because a world view in which everything beyond the "West" (Europe and now Northern America) is considered mere extra, passive matter is exactly what I suspect the hawks of this war of. (Which may also help to partially explain some of the baffling callousness with which Rumsfeld waved away the looting of the Mesopotamian heritage.)

Even the British Empire, though it dominated the seas, functioned in a multipolar world in which France, too, commanded extensive colonies in three continents.

As I said, "One nation" rarely "tends to dominate in the world", and thus no "naturalness" about the situation can be argued to somehow neutralise the unease about the current US hegemony - or rather, about the somewhat cavalier way it is wielded.

I asked about cases from the last 15 years explicitly to be able to compare how much better the US can really be argued to function as the world's policeman than the UN. For that seems to be the argument: the UN has so terribly botched up on this task that it has fully discredited itself and the US is right to take over.

Now UN peacekeepers have of course in these past 15 years safeguarded ceasefires, defused flare-ups and, well - kept the peace, in multiple countries. Eritrea/Ethiopia, Cyprus, Croatia/Bosnia, Macedonia, Namibia, East-Timor, Mozambique, to name but a few. Some with greater, some with distinctly lesser success. The USA has 'done', in your listing, Iraq, Afghanistan, SL and the Balkans. So let's do the comparing. I don't know enough about SL, so I'll have to pass on that one.

The UN has guaranteed the ceasefire and ultimate end of war in Croatia, and, for now, Macedonia. It has tried in Bosnia, but is generally considered having grossly failed, where the US can be said to have saved the day in that case. What did the UN's failure consist of? It reduced war but fighting continued; it succeeded in maintaining some safe enclaves but dreadfully failed in others (Srebrenica). No matter how disappinting this scorecard was, can the US achievement in keeping the peace in Afghanistan be considered to be any better whatsoever? Outside the one Kabul city enclave warlords are in power, intermittently and violently fighting each other while Taliban remnants are still on the (violent) prowl also; no town apart from Kabul is guaranteed any ceasefire or security. Is that really a better track record? In other cases, Kosovo for example, there's been co-operation. The US helped liberate the country - in a coalition, btw, of distinctly larger size than the present one - but left post-war peacekeeping to the OSCE.

There is no chasm in achievement. And there has been shown to be a necessity for the contribution of both US and UN. The case that the UN has through its failures discredited itself while the US can posture as the trustworthy saving angel is a rather brutal twisting of the comparison.



Respect to the Brits for the willingness you mention. I don't think the US public would have accorded "Afghanistan" without "Osama", or "Iraq" without the purported "terrorism" and "WMD" links (however spurious). Again, the select cases in which the US has ventured out to take on a role as world's policeman seem indicative of national interest more than anything else, x-Yugoslavia perhaps being the most eye-catching exception. There is nothing un-understandable about that, and the willingness to deploy troops when national interest does seem to overlap with a 'global cause' makes the US and UK invaluable members of the UN. But it does disqualify the US from taking on the job of world's policeman itself, outside UN channels. A world policemen acting on a national agenda justifiably sows as much distrust as a city police chief doubling as the head of a local political party and a commercial company.

Re: your last quip, I think my life would be in danger if I lived in a world where the UN were to be declared "irrelevant" by a US withdrawing from multilateral diplomacy, and I were to have to trust Bush on his blue eyes only that, from all the mixed track record of his country (that includes references to Pinochet, Lumumba, Colombian paras, El Salvador, Guatamala, Vietnam and Savimbi as well as the examples you mention), it'll be only the pure white of freedom-and-democracy that will henceforth blossom.

Nimh

I think you need to check your history books. Just because France had colonies, doesn't mean that the world was 'multipolar'. France also got it's ass kicked several times by the British, and not forgetting others such as the Russians. It's time in the sun was limited, and that perhaps explains it's attitude today! It wants to be a player on the world stage, but is annoyed that it can't compete with the USA, and even it's langauge is being undermined by English.

There was a time when the British Empire dominated the world, in the same way that the US does so today. It was the world superpower of it's time. It's not just my opinion, a number of historians would back me on that point!

You seem to be ignoring the role of the USA in events from WW2 up to the fall of the Iron Curtain. The massive investment of military resources that involved. Or do you think that is less important than peacekeeping duties for the UN?! Just how much do you expect them to do on your behalf?

You cite examples of UN peacekeeping. Apart from the fact that the UK is involved in many of them, the US was also in the Balkans. Although you seem keen to underplay anything that they do. The Balkans, or the Cold War, could raise the question as to why Europeans complain about the US, yet expect it's protection and help, even when the problems are in our own backyard?! I would imagine many Americans think that. They would be right. Perhaps it's time more Europeans got off their lazy self serving asses and did more for themselves. By the way, our wonderful friends the French were also involved in the Balkans....but proved to be something of a liability since they were passing on information to the Serbs. For example, operations to arrest war criminals were disrupted, because the suspects were tipped off about the operations. So much for UN solidarity!!!

If you were an Iraqi, I think 12 years would appear to be a long time to wait for help from the UN. Even then, it still didn't come.

I didn't have to time to finish yesterday, so here is my final point.

As with many people who are critical if the US and it's relationship with the UN, you are keen to point out the faults of US foreign policy (See your selection of countries in your last post), while you also highlight the UN's list of achievements.

It's surprising that so many people who are critical of the US, actually want it to be involved in the UN at all !! If people are so annoyed or disappointed with it's track record or current behaviour, then why not campaign for the exclusion of the USA from the UN, and maybe the UK as well while you are at it. Teach us a lesson that we won't forget!! Since the UN does such a wonderful job, it probably doesn't need the US or UK. Then countries such as France and Russia can take the lead role in future UN military operations, while the UK and US remain uninvolved.

That will be interesting. As Mark Twain once said, France has neither winter or summer, or morals. Apart from that it's a wonderful country.

nimh, Stinger, Frank

Stinger is certainly correct when he observes the seemingly uni-polarity of today's world as regarding America's Power. But the U.S.'s formidable military might is drawn from its economic power in the world. This economic power, in turn, originates from the openness of our society and good relations with other nations. Because of this link any change will ultimately result in a less stable power base and the potential downfall of American influence in the world.

I myself, as an American citizen, often have the temptation to want to inform those of other nations that we mean no harm in the world and that our power will only be used for good. However, the rest of the world feels our intentions are suspect and our continuing assurances to the contrary are construed by them to be at least paternalistic and therefore patronizing at best.

I, of course, truly feel that Americans will wisely use this power. But, even I can't be positively certain of this and therein lies the rub. The U.S. form of government has remedies to change leaders between elections if need be but this takes time. It is possible an administration would abuse its powers to the point where the repercussions resulting from that abuse are irretrievable even after a "regime change". Some here and abroad would argue such has already come to be. I don't feel that way.

It should be possible for the U.S. to mend fences. We are already working with Germany. China has concerns that we can help them with. Russia needs us especially for economic aid and France, well, they are just being French and will come around (There goes that paternalism again). This is all quite general but I believe we can work with Europe (both western and eastern). Thus, it is imperative that we change our diplomatic tactics to be less "in your face" and more towards that of a conservative bent. However, diplomacy towards "trouble states" would probably benefit more using "aggressive engagement" (somewhere between military action against or complicity with the regimes of these states) which is currently afforded the U.S. by way of our recent victory in Iraq.

We have an excellent Secretary of State in Colin Powell but he has been held in the administrational wilderness until just recently. He was briefly used by the present administration, disingenuously in my opinion, to secure UN approval for the Iraqi adventure and subsequently for fence mending. He has recently been working on our diplomatic face-lift and we can only hope he has some success. The key to this success, however, lies in the current administration backing up Mr. Powell's efforts. (Even some in the U.S. have suggested somewhat unconventional uses of Duct Tape involving our present Secretary of Defense)
(As a side note: General Powell was tapped to run for the Republican nomination for U.S. presidency back just before those 2000 elections. I am not sure if he would have won against Democrat Al Gore but had he ran as a democrat against GW Bush's republican bid for the presidency the topic of this conversation would not exist, Powell would have won hands down. Powell did none of the above because he promised his wife if asked he would not run. He was and he didn't...oh well)

Although it is economically important to create, nurture, and maintain good diplomatic relations with the other nations of the world, we in the U.S. have undergone somewhat of a transition that further threatens to endanger us economically.

This involves the security issue since 9/11. Since this tragedy we have seen an almost unprecedented threat towards personal freedom and individual rights that we haven't seen in the U.S. since the The Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 (a notable exception is what happened in the U.S. to those of Japanese descent during WWII). This threat comes in the guise known as the USA PATRIOT Act. In the words of the U.S. Congress:

"This Act may be cited as the `Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001' "

In reality this act is just a few notches short of marshal law given its powers afforded the U.S. Attorney General.
It has been the historical role of our Attorney General (presently John Ashcroft) to find the bad guys, gather evidence against, and convict them. Now, however, we find that our Attorney General is now charged with also preventing crime before it happens. (Sounds like a good plot for a Sci-Fi Movie doesn't it?). This might be humorous if not for the fact Mr. Ashcroft asked and got this end run around the U.S. Bill of Rights because of our almost fanatical fear of domestic terrorism. This fear has so pervaded our thinking as too force one as to be farsighted enough to make sure one clips his nails before using the services of an American airline. This may very well filter down to economic areas such as imports, slowing inspections, increasing costs, and in the end inhibit U.S. Trade. Inhibited trade would erode economic power contributing to a degradation of U.S. strength. In addition it has been perceived that speaking out against the war is un-American. One only wonders to what length those in power are willing to go in their interpretation of "un-American" when this attitude implicitly threatens free speech.

So, if the U.S. wants to remain in its present position of power it must work towards greater diplomatic efforts towards allies, both current and future. As strange as it might sound we might do well to try to cultivate allies among the Middle Eastern nations. It is better to cultivate fruitful friendships here than to let poverty, disempowerment, and hatred grow into the weeds of terrorist organizations thereby choking not only international security, but also the welfare and legitimacy of those it purports to represent.

JM

Hiya Stinger



France owned, according to my historical map, half of Africa and sizable chunks of Asia. That made it a global enough power in my eyes to suggest a state of multi-polarity - suggesting nothing more than that different world powers exerted dominant command over sizable 'zones of influence' in the world each, and that no one country in the world could exert overriding influence everywhere.

For sure no equivalent of the France of those times exists today to counterbalance US dominance. Russia has its "near abroad" and the EU barely commands influence over its own member states, thats about it - otherwise the US is the major external influence in every single part of the world.

That is a state quite unparallelled in history, I'd suggest, and makes a desire for that one superpower to at least be accountable for its plans and actions through some multilateral forum, like the UN, at the very least understandable. There is no reason why we should be expected to simply take Bush's word on it that the US will act as a benevolent world power only. Yes, the US has acted a s a benevolent outside power to Europeans since WW2 - or WW1. But South-Americans and even Africans will tell of different experiences with how America exercises its power. So all we ask is for the US to accept that power, in these post-imperial times, should come with accountability. You cannot expect your ambition to to intervene around the world to be approved by an international community when you are not willing to grant that international community a say in the how and what of those interventions.



There was a very specific question here. Who does better at playing, to put it roughly, 'global cop'? The case the US is now making is that the UN has fully discredited itself, and thus the US is forced to take over. That suggests a chasm in results between the peacekeeping efforts of the two. I asked you: give me examples of how the US fared at it these last 15 years, and how its results compared with where the UN road was taken.

I submitted that the respective results were in both cases sketchy - not, in any case, evidencing an abject failure of UN operations on the one hand and a glorious success of US actions on the other. Compare what the US achieved in Haiti with what the UN achieved in Cambodia, and neither will reassure you much, to name but one set of examples. As long as there is no such chasm I dont see the immediate necessity of ceding the authority of a global, multilateral forum of the world's governments to the one single country's administration.

I dont really see what "the massive investment of military resources" of the USA in the Cold War has to do with its ability to play global cop in these fragmented times - period. The only point in your remarks there seems to be that the gratefulness we should feel for our (grand)parents having been saved from the Soviets by the US in the 40s/50s should dictate for us now to accept silently and gladly any foreign policy it currently chooses to implement. I dont need to argue why I dont buy that point.



I think I already noted in extenso how the EU failed in Bosnia and the US had to come save the day. I also think the UN did do a good job in Croatia, and that the OSCE does a good job in Kosovo.

In reference also to your point on "why not campaign for the exclusion of the USA from the UN", I'll just quote myself - the part you don't seem to have seen:



I.e.: I consider the contribution the US has made to UN operatons "invaluable" - what I disagree with is a step going much further, in which the US aims to replace the UN.

What I want is exactly for the US "to be involved in the UN" - to act but to act within it. To act within the UN means to push your case, but also accept it when an overwhelming majority of countries (it is tiresome to see people here write about it as if it were just France) disagrees with your definition of what action past resolutions and current risks prescribe. The US has succesfully vetoed action against Israel over the many years that country has violated UN resolutions, but insists it can define and act on what the UN resolutions "really meant" when others do so on other questions. That bodes ill for international law.



I was thinking about that when I started this thread: Europeans: should we up military spending?



The French role in Bosnia was disgraceful. How you get to equate the French with the UN, tho, I dont know, I dont remember having sung the praises of French foreign policy anywhere in this thread ... The French disrupted operation to arrest war criminals by - UN troops. They disrupted war criminals being brought before a - UN court. Milosevic is now tried by - the UN. Thats the first time in decades a former dictator gets tried as a war criminal by an international court. The UN wants to continue on this precedent and set up a permanent court on war crimes, the ICC. The US did its very best to blow it up. "So much for a consistent commitment to international justice!" <sigh>



Did the US at any time in these 12 years do anything? Did the US do anything when the Shi'ites heeded its call to rise up, and were subsequently slaughtered? Nobody did anything about the fate of the Iraqis under their dictators, not just these 12 years, but for over two decades. Neither the US nor the UN. Then came 2003, and the UN pleaded for months - not years - of delay, while the US wanted to intervene immediately - for stated reasons that did not ever include the fate of the Iraqi victims of dictatorship. How this difference of opinion about the supposed risks of WMD during these last few months suddenly retroactively makes the UN solely responsible for a 12 year track record of neglecting human rights that was determined by the US as much as by any other country, is anyone's guess.

Anyway: glad to see the times of "awkward questions" seem to be over for you now that the Americans - and British, of course - have turned out to successfully "kick ass" - you seem to have regained full control of a clear, unambiguous view on the world. That might make this thread a bit redundant perhaps, though ...

Nimh

I am aware that France had colonies in various parts of the world, and was a 'powerful' nation, but that is different from being a 'superpower'. Whereas the British empire was, in it's time a 'superpower', with an empire that spanned the globe, and a powerful military - including a navy that ruled the seas, which at the time was like being a nuclear superpower.
France I would suggest, was not in the same superpower / world domination league as the British Empire. Which perhaps explains it's defeat at the Battle Of Trafalgar. Nelson's Column in London, is just a subtle reminder for our French neighbours, of the hero of that naval battle I indicated previously that France may have had it's occasional moments in the sun, but the rain clouds of reality usually appeared on the horizon. This would come in the form of a revolution, or military defeat at the hands of the British, Russians, Nazis etc. Admittedly, the German occupation may not have been a total defeat for France, since quite a few of the local population decided to collaborate with the Nazis. But for sake of argument, and to spare their embarrassment, I'll just call it a defeat!

You want the USA to be accountable to the UN, and yet you question why the USA / UK waited 12 years before acting against Saddam. In a way, you have answered one question with another. For 12 years, the US / UK were acting according to the wishes of the UN, which precluded them from invading Iraq. Although a UN resolution (1441, I believe) eventually sanctioned military action, if Iraq did not cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors - which it still didn't do for a long period of time.....but yet the UN still sat on it's hands.
The recent farce involving Hans Blix, was actually unnecessary, since the UN was already entitled to use military force. Frustration with the charade that was being played in Iraq, was the spark for action by the USA / UK. UN weapons inspectors should not have been playing a game of cat and mouse with the Iraqis. The Iraqis were supposed to reveal everything, up front. Full cooperation. It wasn't the job of the UN to have to find things. The Iraqis were actually meant to produce everything that the UN weapons inspectors asked for. Iraq opted to drag out the process as long as they could, and did not provide information on chemicals that the UN - even Hans Blix, knew that Iraq had acquired in the past.

Why did the US / UK not act in the previous 12 years? Blame the UN's desire to wait, not the US / UK for doing what the rest of the UN should have done.

Why didn't the US act to help the Shia after the uprising after the last Gulf War? I have already said that I think we missed the chance to go the whole way to Baghdad, during the last war. We should have finished the job back then. Should we have helped the Shia during the last uprising? Yes. (Don't forget the US / UK patrolled the no-fly zones which did restrict the activities of Saddam against the Shia and Kurds). But I have already asked, what would have been reaction of the rest of the UN, the Middle East, or the 'coalition forces' at the time, if the US / UK military had taken the decision to involve themselves militarily in the overthrow of Saddam. The mission at the time was simply to liberate Kuwait, not the invasion of Iraq. I doubt countries such as Syria would have been impressed, if we had suddenly increased the scope of our operation, to include the overthrow of an Arab leader. Just look at the reaction, now that we have actually done it. Do you think the coalition force could have been formed 12 years ago, if they knew that the US / UK were contemplating going to Baghdad, or helping stir up a revolution, by providing direct military assistance?
Perhaps if other nations, or the UN had shown more willingness to fully deal with the problem of Saddam, we could have done more in the first Gulf War. But unfortunately, international politics got in the way. Again, you can't blame the USA / UK for the inaction and unwillingness of others.

Why is Milosevic in court? As we have both pointed out, it's unlikely the French helped much? If they arrested anyone, it was probably by accident! War criminals had a tendency to hide in French controlled areas since they knew, for example, it was safer than hiding in British controlled areas. Teams of British special forces soldiers (SAS), were involved in tracking down war criminals, which they did, and I seem to remember some of the wanted criminals, or their guards, were killed in firefights. Compare and contrast this with the French inaction. And people wonder why the French attract criticism!! I don't blame the French people, just their political leadership, which seems to be lacking in morals. (What do you call 10 French politicians drowning in the ocean? A good start.......What do you do if you see a French politician drowning in the ocean? Throw him BOTH ends of a rope.)
My previous mention of the French role in the Balkans, was to highlight the fact that a UN role in peacekeeping, does not necessarily mean a superior performance than a non-UN peacekeeping operation. Your comments on the French in Bosnia, even supports this. The French in the Balkans, is just one example of why I do not share your optimistic view of the UN as a peacekeeper. It is only as effective as it's members, and the French, on more than occasion, along with others, have highlighted the weakness of the UN peacekeeping concept.

How long did it take the UN to act in East Timor? There was genocide in the country for years. What did the UN do? Meanwhile many of the UN member nations, probably including the US and UK, continued dealing with Indonesia - the country responsible for the genocide. There is no point patting ourselves on the backs, simply because the United Nations EVENTUALLY got involved. The member nations, that's ALL of us...did nothing for a couple of decades or more.
You can say that's an example of the USA not performing it's role as a 'global cop'. But then, the history of East Timor would suggest that the US was not alone in failing the population of the island. You don't want the US acting outside UN channels. Well, in East Timor....it didn't. It did just exactly the same as many other UN member nations. Perhaps the US should have acted alone, outside UN channels, but then of course, it would probably have been criticized for doing so. Damned if it does. Damned if it doesn't.

While you say that you do not need to feel grateful for your grandparents being saved from the Soviets in the 1940s -50s, you forget that the Cold War didn't end until about a decade ago. Which maybe explains the large presence of soldiers in western Europe for over forty years after WW2. The current generations have a lot to be grateful for. Maybe Europe has a short memory, rather than just being ungrateful!!! You seem to have forgotten, that the US has being playing 'global cop', along with some smaller allies in NATO, for a long time. (Without the US, how effective would NATO have been?) The 'massive investment of military resources' by the US, has everything to do with the present day. You seem keen to have a 'multi polar' world, rather than one dominant superpower. The last time we came close to 'multi-polar', was back when we had the Warsaw Pact nations opposing the NATO nations. (Not exactly a great endorsement for the concept of a 'multi-polar' world. It makes the present single superpower model look pretty good!) If it had not been for the USA's 'massive investment of military resources', would the Cold War have ended yet? Imagine international relations, or events at the UN, if the Cold War was still ongoing. Think of an old style USSR, on the Security Council today, along with China, France, the UK and USA. Not exactly a recipe for 'multipolar' harmonious relations.
I think the USA's role as 'global cop', (Along with some of it's allies) during the Cold War, matches and indeed surpasses any / all of your examples of the UN as peacekeeper. Simply imagine how history could have been altered without the US contribution in the Cold War. Would a UN, without the US, have been able to halt the Soviets in Europe? It may be difficult, but I think it's time for a European reality check - especially for the French!
The British army is one of the best in the world, but there is only so much a nation of our size can do, when faced with a threat from a larger country. The USA has helped the UK in the past, and that's why the UK is willing to repay the favour, even when it means going to war. That's what allies do. We don't just ask for help when we are in danger or under attack, then ignore our friends, when they need our help or support.
I know that the US has done things in the past, that they should not have done. But then many countries have made mistakes, or done things that were unpopular. You cite US failings in South America etc. I could also cite the activities of countries such as the USSR / Cuba etc, in the same countries, as well as others. Let us not forget. The USSR = Russia = Member of UN Security Council. It's not just the USA that's the problem - now or in the past.

Here is an uncomfortable thought for you. Perhaps a world in which a single nation, is the dominant force, for all it's faults, may actually be safer than having a 'multi-polar' world. The US military is vast, in comparison to even several other nations combined. So it would be a little pointless to challenge it to a fight. After Iraq, I doubt anyone is going to try!
If the USA was weaker, and matched by several nations, or even just one superpower such as the old USSR, would that make the world a safer place? It sure as hell feels safer now than it did during the Cold War, when we were more 'multi-polar' than we are today.
The UN as 'global cop', is probably just an illusion, that people really want to believe. The reality, is that the UN needs the USA, more than the USA needs the UN. Was it President Truman said something about talking softly, but carrying a big stick. The UN can talk softly, but when it needs a big stick, where will it turn to for help? But with UN member nations having conflicting aims / agendas, it's unlikely that the big stick will be called for too often, even when it is required.
Like it or not, sometimes force, or the threat of force is more effective than diplomacy. If a similar situation to Iraq, existed in Country X today. Do you think Country X, after seeing the Iraqi example, would now be more, or less willing to cooperate with the UN, rather than risk getting it's ass kicked by the US / UK. It's a little like a Good Cop / Bad Cop situation. Deal with the friendly, diplomatic Good Cop (UN) or deal with the 'Bad Cop' (US / UK) who is willing to hit you very hard if you don't do as instructed by the Good Cop.

In an ideal world, diplomacy would triumph every time. However, the sad reality is that a little ass kicking is required every so often, just to remind people of the alternatives. Saddam didn't think that the UN would use force, and he was basically correct. Perhaps if the threat of force had been more believable, or credible, he would have responded in a more positive fashion to the UN, a long time ago. Then we would all have been spared a war. Sadly, Saddam saw the UN for what it really is, and took a gamble. He lost of course, but only because some countries were willing to act against the wishes of others in the UN.

Nimh says...

"Anyway: glad to see the times of "awkward questions" seem to be over for you now that the Americans - and British, of course - have turned out to successfully "kick ass" - you seem to have regained full control of a clear, unambiguous view on the world."

It's very easy to explain my clarity. Much of the debate on the war, seems to have been more to do with, anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-Britsh political views, or the legality of the war, or how the US / UK action will effect the UN or international relations, or the real motivations for the war etc etc etc etc..............

All of that is a distraction. Something that only people sitting at computer keyboards, or in bars, or in front of TVs etc can afford to indulge in. It's also very easy to be sucked into the centre of that vortex of debate. Luckily, I managed to swim free. I could see both sides to many of the arguements, or at least, I was aware of them. But I was also aware of the type of person that was in control of Iraq, and since I am unaware of too many good, kind dictatorships, I had a feeling that despite all the debate, that perhaps we were missing the most important issue of all. The people of Iraq. Any doubts I had about the war, evaporated with the liberation of the people of Iraq. As the horror stories of life in a dictatorship have been revealed, it's hard to understand why anyone would think permitting the continuation of such suffering, would be a good idea. Many people seem to think it would have been more humanitarian to allow Iraqis to suffer for longer. That a war to liberate them would be more bloody (WRONG), and less humanitarian (WRONG) than leaving them to be victims of Saddam.

It's pretty clear in my mind. Not much of a debate at all really. Sometimes issues are a lot less complicated than we think. Sometimes we just need to remember what is really important. It's easy to forget. Pictures of happy cheering Iraqis, I think should help remind everybody.....but then, that's probably just me being idealistic and optimistic. No doubt a lot of people still haven't realized that actually freeing people from torture and terror, is the most important thing of all. I still don't give a damn if it was just a by-product of a quest for oil or whatever. Freeing people from oppression, no matter how or why it happens, gets my support every time. My mind is perfectly clear on that!

The whole anti-French thing - whether expressed in anger or glee - still escapes me, entirely - and I live in a country that was actually occupied by France, be it in a distant past <grins>. And I do think that, although you again raise so many interesting issues, we might just have to end up accepting basic disagreement about, for example, where the responsibility for what lay these 12 years, or what was fair or farce re: UN-coordinated Iraqi disarmament. But meanwhile,



that's a fair point, of course. It's true - there is something basically dishonest about reproaching the US both for not acting to save the Shi'a back then and for invading Iraq right now - either you want them to stick to the current 'rules of the game' and stay out when lacking UN legitimisation, or you want them to go in and stop repression. Can't blame them for doing the former then and for doing the latter now - like you say, that ends them up "Damned if it does. Damned if it doesn't", hardly an incentive for them to start listening.

The argumentation that would be behind blaming them for both would be about motivation - pointing to the fate of the Shi'a to prove US motivations are not really about democracy & human rights, and that such justifications can thus not be taken seriously now - which would leave the present war a mere invasion rather than a honorable liberation fight. But that's all reactive. The logic doesnt in itself speak of much a coherent view of what then should have been done. In the end, its like you write:



No, it couldnt, because the value of national sovereignty as safeguard against random intervention is still held in higher regard than the value of stopping harmful regimes (whether the argument of harm is about human rights or WMD).

And that is a very basic question, and no less difficult one just because the US won, or because (duh) prisoners from Saddam's torture chambers turn out to tell harrowing stories. Dictatorships like Saddam's should be ended, as soon as possible. But you also dont want to live (well, I dont) in a world where a single state, over whose government you have no right of vote or influence whatsoever, has a free choice on where why and how to intervene - globally.

There's two evils there. One is that of 1) a petty dictator of whom 2) you know for sure he submits the 3) one country he rules to hell. Pure evil with a limited scope, thus. The other is that of 1) a relatively benign state with, however, a sketchy record in foreign policy, being able to 2) potentially submit 3)any country in the world to its sketchy record. Unpredictable risks for all the world, thus.

You have to make a choice between which of those two you consider the greater danger, however cynical that may end you up sounding. And I'd say the choice would turn out different from case to case, moment to moment. Some would say someone like me defended the intervention in Kosovo and not the one in Iraq because the fate of the Kosovars, being so much closer to home, struck me more, and the Iraqis are "far from my bed". I would say it was because the second risk - the one of a radical US government intent on bullying the world into submission to its demands, dressed up in humanitarian garb but expressing mere national interest - is now so much more acute, the implications for the region in question as a whole and for international terrorism more serious, the chances for post-war chances of a freeer country less favourable in any case - the balance tilts the other way. But when you write,



that's just as reasonable a position, and I could well have ended up on your side. In fact, should I ever have come to support this war, it would be with that exact argument - "I may not trust the motivations of the invaders either, but hell, if they bring freedom from tyranny for this country, more power to them - we'll deal with those motivations later".

So many other points ... <smiles>



We agree there, for sure - my point was merely that the same goes the other way round. The record of unilateral US intervention - from Haiti and Panama to Afghanistan - does not necessarily constitute a superior performance either. And yet this is what we are to believe: that what has happened thus far means that the UN has totally discredited itself, while the US comes out shining like the beacon of hope. It's those rhetorics I consider a sham, and I tend to suspect that they're bandied around in a deliberate attempt, by those in the US government who never had any truck with multilateralism anyway - to make the most of the "collateral" opportunity offered by the aftermath of this war to slash the UN out of its hindersome way.

Which is enough grounds for mistrust, as those people do not necessarily resent the same things we do about the UN. We resent the UN for not having had 'teeth' enough to properly act against the brutalities of various dictatorships. They resent the obstacles it puts in the way of US unilateralism, per se - they resent the ICC, for example, and its claim to judging over future Milosevic's, because they want to reserve the right to do the judging themselves. We are talking a blunt perception of competition, here, and again I think Milosevic being tried by a UN court has just that much more credibility than, say, Saddam Hussein tried by a US court.



I don't believe Western Europe was in serious risk of being occupied by Soviet troops after the fifties. I do think (in contrast to many others) that back in '45, Stalin wouldnt have thought twice about marching his troops on to the Atlantic if the Americans and Brits hadnt been in his way. But Brezhnev? Nah. He had his hands full clamping down on uprisings within the bloc he already had. He would have been stirring up trouble in W-European democracies, for sure, but would surely have thought twice about trying an Afghanistan in the heart of Europe.

Thats not to say I think the remainder of the Cold War was of no use. The sheer outspending of the Soviet empire on military matters contributed to its collapse from within. And without Reagan's blunt reminders ("Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall"), West-Europeans might well have too easily resigned themselves to a status quo that, in the end, turned out not to be all that unavoidable at all.



Yeh, in that comparison it does. But there was a decade+ in between, when there was hope for an international order based on more than might makes right. Sure it was imperfect, but the little that was done in, say, East-Timor or establishing War Crime Tribunals, was unparallelled in the decades before. It showed that the consultancy of nations in the UN could lead to a little extra beyond the mere implementation of national interest. I would be loath to return to the latter.



We already mentioned Latin America, I think I mentioned Lumumba, Unita, Sukarno, Vietnam, too - again I'd like to highlight that the world is bigger than Europe and that, though we were saved by the US back in '45, that doesnt necessarily make "the USA's role as 'global cop'" during the Cold War as a whole inspires much confidence. In any case, I think the two things are incomparable. Fighting a massive nuclear-infused bi-polar Cold War in which the Third World constituted mere stomping grounds for the rivals is such a far cry from this present world of peace-keeping and humanitarian interventions. That we are now in an era of peace-keeping and humanitarian interventions is thanks, of course, to the end of the Cold War - but has also since been shaped and wrested into place, with great effort, by the multilateralists. How do their achievements compare to how US-led missions fared since the end of the Cold War? I'd say it's a tie, and if that's what it is, overall, I'd rather stick with the conceptually more reassuring alternative. But again - different folks, different strokes, in the end. I'd say "I" am with more people, but then, "you" have the bigger guns ;-).



For a while, probably. But I'm afraid both of what it would do with that "vast" power, and of the backlash that comes with hegemony as rain comes with sun.

Compare Algeria, or Uzbekistan. In both cases, a burgeoning democratisation process brought movements of more or less Islamist hue to the fore. That was scary. It was so scary, the state decided to reestablish its hegemony, clamping down - hard. What do we now have in result? State regimes that corrupted themselves in their re-established supreme power to the point where they now embody a state terrorism as violent as any the opposition could have yielded. And an underground resistance so embittered and radicalised that western-style notions of democracy and tolerance have become mere mirages. I fear that scenario.

Thanks for a thought-provoking post, btw.

Very interesting. It seems there are many, many questions
Americans are now asking themselves - for one mere
example, while listening to a press conference, one reporter
(quite sarcastically) asked a VERY pointed question about
why, given the biological warfare materials supposedly ready
to be used in Iraq - were these weapons NOT used against US
troops in the Iraq war. Didn't it strike the US administration as
the slightest bit surprising that no such weapons were used,
OR found in Iraq? The answer was a garbled, political type
remark about our having found certain materials which could
be used to make such biological weapons, but no, he did not
have any comment on this particular question - in fact he
dodged it as though it were a missile pointed at his own head.
There are just too many things suggesting that we Americans
have been very mislead by our leaders, Bush in particular.

Nimh

The anti-French thing, is the same as the anti-British thing. Both France and the UK have been playing this game for a long time. In these more sophesticated times, we have refined it down to name calling, and generally each others misfortune. In the past, we used to just fight each other. Oh the good old days!!

You are right that we may have to just agree to differ on certain things, otherwise this thread might last longer than the actual war!

Your point on 'motivation', comes up a lot in debates about the Iraq war. While I'm sure it's possible that the US had more than one aim / motivation for the war, or a hidden agenda, as did some of those countries opposing the war (France and Russia for example - Oil contracts etc etc), a lot of people forget, that Bush had made it clear prior to the war, that he would like to see Saddam go. He didn't make a secret of it. He even gave it a name - 'Regime Change'. (Their plan probably dates back prior to Bush's election.)

It's pretty clear what the US wanted. The logical conclusion of Saddam's removal, was that the Iraqi people would be free....as they now are. It's easy to be cynical, and suggest that Bush kept changing the reasons for invading Iraq, but all along, no matter what else was said about weapons of mass destruction, oil wars etc, he made it clear that he would like to see Saddam go. He may, or may not have had other objectives as well, but the desire to remove Saddam, was out in the open for everyone to see. Everything else that's been said about his alleged motivations for the war, are for now just our opinions and speculation. A lot of people on the anti-war side, chose to focus on the possible motivations, decided that they were the REAL reasons for the war, and therefore the war was wrong / immoral / unjust / illegal etc. Meanwhile, they seemed to forget that Saddam's defeat, would mean the liberation of an oppressed people.

I know this may be an irony that would annoy many in the anti-war movement, but my gradual shift to supporting the war, probably started when I was watching some people / politicians in the anti-war movement! It was the anti-war movement, that made me think war may actually be a good idea.
They seemed to be purposely overlooking the obvious. They were willing to admit Saddam was an evil dictator, but then stated that the Iraqi people would not want to see US / UK troops in Iraq, even if they were there to liberate them. That didn't make sense to me. Even I knew that the majority of people in Iraq, are Kurds and Shia, and I doubted they would be too supportive of Saddam's regime. It would not be a war against the whole of the population, only Saddam's supporters. From there, my doubt's about the anti-war campaign, started to grow. With the images of the Iraqis after liberation, I feel vindicated. It may not have been the perfect solution to the probelm, but it was better than anything I heard from the anti-war side.
I have to wonder how much of the rhetoric from the anti-war movement's leaders, was actually politically motivated - anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Blair etc. It appeared to me, that they were more concerned with winning support for themselves, and their political views, rather than being genuinely concerned about the Iraqi people. They claimed to be concerned by the humanitarian costs of the war - the suffering of the Iraqi people. As I think I mentioned before, these same people who were so vocal in their concern for the Iraqis if we invaded their country, were very quiet for years, while Iraqis suffered under Saddam. They claimed that Bush / Blair were not genuinely concerned about the Iraqi people. Maybe they were judging others by their own standards! They saw an opportunity to help themselves. My low opinion of politicians, just got lower!!!
I think it's also possible that a lot of people involved in the anti-war movement, who were anti-Bush or anti-American etc, even before the prospect of war in Iraq, were then blinded by their own bias / political prejudices. They just didn't want to listen, or accept that anything involving Bush, could actually achieve something positive. And God fobid that they might support something he was doing!!
I'm not a fan of Bush or Blair, but sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture. My concern was with the Iraqi people. If Bush wanted to win oilfields or whatever, that's something that can be dealt with separately. My view was, liberate the Iraqi people, and then deal with any hidden agendas of our political leaders. Sadly, a lot of people chose to do things the other way around - fight the possible hidden agendas of Bush / Blair, while the Iraqi people waited for us to make up our minds....and then possibly do nothing that would actually help them!


I think the massive military presence in western Europe during the Cold War, was the reason why the Soviets stopped where they did. They were doing likewise on their side of the division. It was a stand-off. It's easy now to say that it didn't make a difference to the security of Europe. At the time, I don't think people would have been so sure.
Events around the globe during the Cold War, was a version of the US and allies playing 'Global Cop'. If the US / NATO countries hadn't acted elsewhere in the world, the Soviets would have increased their influence in certain countries, with no opposition. The domino theory had something to do with this. If you don't stop one, they all start to fall. Again, this may not have been done to your liking, but it was certainly the US and allies, policing the globe, to prevent communist subversion of various countries etc.


BABSATAMELIA

As I said before, I don't really care if Iraq had WOMD. We shouldn't need WOMD as a moral justification to liberate an oppressed people. Sadly, a lot of people forgot about the suffering that was already happening in Iraq. We chose to ignore it, since it didn't directly effect us. That is to our shame.
Simply liberating the Iraqi people should have been a sufficent cause, to gain our support. But for many, it wasn't, and is still not. Despite the fact so many Iraqis are actually happy about the invasion.
Perhaps the stuff we were told about WOMD, was exaggerated, to win our support. It probably worked on many people. It possibly helped make the war possible. Which is just as well perhaps, otherwise Saddam would still be in power, and the Iraqi people would still be living under a dictator.

It's not often I agree with propaganda or fooling the public, but this time, I will make an exception.

Hi Stinger



I recognize that experience. Already noted somewhere that the anti-war movement seemed to lack both convincing spokesmen and a convincing overall vision. What it was good at was at pointing out the discrepancies, hypocricies and outright lies of the Bush camp. And since some of those discrepancies were, to my mind, very dangerous to - hell - the very future of this world, that was a laudable mission in itself. But it remained reactive. Each time the Bush machine shifted its course to a new excuse for the war, the anti-war movement shifted with it, weighing the latest argumentation and finding it flawed. They were right, but never came up with a convincing countervision - neither on what, then, should be done about Saddam's dictatorship (as apart from his supposed WMD), nor on what was really behind the drive for war (I never bought into the "no blood for oil" slogan).

The same goes the other way around though. I've often expressed my exasperation here already at the Americans' seeming inability to express a convincing case for this war, because I knew there was one, somewhere. I wasnt against a war in Iraq - I was merely against this one, the one the Americans seemed to suggest. By changing the stated justification for the war every other month and every single time failing to provide the necessary proof or more than the most ad hoc of logic about it, Bush really did just seem to be picking a fight. And we cant have that kind of thing going on, in this interdependent world.

Had the case of stopping dictatorship been the one made for the war from the very start - and the one shaping the strategies and plans for it - it wouldn't have found much of an opponent in me; a sceptic observer, at most. But the whole terrorism-link, nuclear-program, WMD, immediate-threat-to-world-security thing was just too much of a sham, with not even a hint of a vision for post-war Iraqi democracy to compensate for it. I didnt feel much for sacrificing all of the UN system of consultative international power and causing a fierce Arab backlash to go with it, merely to satisfy a seemingly irrational cause of one powerful country.

In any case, like you say, the war's been, and the results seem clear. On the + side: the Iraqis have been saved from Saddam. Whatever will take his place - and I dont share the American optimism about what will - it will be better than Saddam was. On the other side (amongst other things), the UN seem definitely been shoved aside to make way for the US as global cop. You are optimistic about that - I am definitely not. As you already write:



It is exactly that "version of the US and allies playing 'Global Cop'" that instills such fear for the future now. You say at least it "prevented communist subversion of various countries". I say it came down to funding, arming and intervening on the side of some of the most brutal dictatorships, death squads and terrorists the last century has seen, on the mere rationale of it being done against "leftist" opponents - regardless of whether the leftists in question were dictators themselves or actually democratically elected governments. I am afraid that is the precedent, exactly, and if it is, god help us when we start wishing we were back in the days of Clinton and UNMIK. My only hope is that it won't be like that - that, without the acute threat of an antipole like the Soviets, the Americans will dare to take greater risks in actually supporting democracy and human rights outside Europe as well. But it scares me that all anyone has to go on in that respect is trust - since the US has made very clear, this year, that it will tolerate no outside attempts to influence or restrain its actions.