The US, UN & Iraq III

Much is being made by those opposed to the war in Iraq about WMD. Those in that camp, in their pre-war arguments, seemed prone to relegate Saddam's possession and proven use of WMD to the realm of unimportance when qualifying reasons justifying military action. This same group now inversely elevates these weapons to a casus belli when arguing the importance that the U.S. finds WMD to validate its cause for the War.

Which shall it be? Either WMD are important or they are not.

It is, of course, a moot point, especially now that we see statements implying that even if these weapons are found they will be dismissed as part of an American conspiracy involving salting of WMD sites. I guess we will have to institute body cavity searches of those inspecting those sites before they begin.

Conspiracy theories are always useful in such cases because lack of actual proof is viewed, by proponents, as excellent proof of how pernicious and extensive the conspiracy actually is.

Apparently, America now must demonstrate, post war, what Saddam was supposed to but did not in order to prevent a war: a valid chain of evidence. The fact that Saddam admitted to having WMD (as well as SCUDS etc.) and promised to destroy them as part of the deal for a cease fire in 1991 also seems to get lost in the shuffle for some reason.

An administration that is perceived as crying, "Wolf!" to not only its citizens but also its allies is one without creditability. This is only more ammunition to its critics and enemies and does the U.S. no favors in regards to future international engagements.

What is clear to me is that the "powers that be" felt that their real reason for going to war would be misunderstood by the American public and understood only too well by the rest of the world. They were probably correct in this assumption. Its safe to say that I am not alone in feeling that Iraq was "ripe" for an ideological regime change, its method of implementation not withstanding.

Sadly I don't think the concept of paradigm shift as regards American/Middle Eastern interaction could be grasped by most of the American public, not because they are of low intelligence but because Americans do not want to take the time to educate themselves about the subject matter.

If the U.S. administration had just come out and cited regime change in Iraq and tried to explain this paradigm change and its reasons for such a policy in the Middle East, American eyes would start to glaze over but not before cries of "Imperialism" and "Blood for Oil" would begin to be heard and hijack the debate. Simpler seems better.

This implies a lack of attention span on the part of Americans. Perhaps the "powers that be" were right in keeping it simple;

Concentrate on the bad dictator willing to use the WMD at his disposal against his own people and his support for terrorism along with his willingness to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. Saddam and Iraq were a perfect fit to initiate the U.S.'s new policy towards international hooligans. Saddam didn't have a chance.

One thing is certain. The Middle East has never seen raw American power before.

Various sources there may denounce and defame but they are surely "amazed about what they observed just by watching". They see a well respected Arab dictator for almost 23 years with all kinds of weaponry and an army of over half a million men suddenly reduced, within a little more than a fortnight, to hiding somewhere in a Baghdadi basement.

Formerly American power was viewed only when used sparingly to uphold monarchal, corrupt, and repressive governments in the region such as Iran, Iraq, and more recently Saudi Arabia. Can one really feign surprise when the Arab street gets pissed off at us?

In addition, America's almost pharmacological dependence on oil has allowed countries such as Saudi Arabia to insert the ring of Middle Eastern oil in our nose and lead us around like a castrated bull. This while they use the money we pay them for their oil to donate to "charities" that end up conveying their beneficiaries into NYC skyscrapers at 600 mph on our own aircraft. They then rub salt into the fresh collective wound by offering a $10 million check to the Mayor of NYC who nobly refused it. We should no longer allow these governments to deflect their own citizens' anger about their lack of self-determination towards the U.S. and Israel as perceived causative agents of misery of their own making.

Perhaps this new policy towards the Middle East has already produced results. When it was demanded of Syria to turn over certain individuals we got them... and not a diplomatic song and dance.

Good signs, but we have a way to go. We broke Iraq and it is now our responsibility. For whatever reason, this administration miscalculated. They thought they could just decapitate Iraq's regime, plug in their own people at the top, and sail on to calmer seas. Instead everything collapsed. We then gave in to our fear of being called "occupiers" by inserting a "Captain Kangaroo" head administrator who then moused around the government buildings and potential Saddam wannabes like a small mammal scurrying in between dinosaurs. We should have put in MacArthur-like Tommy Franks to break some heads, establish an ideological beachhead, and set up law and order and if the mullahs didn't like it they could get outta Dodge. Sound harsh? These suggestions come from many Iraqi citizens on the ground. Their biggest complaint after Saddam fell was that there essentially was no one responsible for law and order; some even said they were beginning to long for the good old days!

Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is just another variant of Ku Klux Klanism with different headgear and more prayers. It is vile not only because it preaches hatred and intolerance but does so to little children and robs them of the opportunity to think for themselves.

Bremer feels, as I, that stability in Iraq is more important right now then is democracy.

We should pour money and manpower into Iraq. This civil administrative blitz should be overwhelming.

When we get this right the other nations in the area will take notice, the people and their repressive regimes will come to a greater "understanding". Iraq could very well be the tipping point we need in this area but it needs Law and Order, economic viability, free press and electronic media (sans intolerance), and libertarian democracy (not just free elections) in that order. It's important to get this right.

It is probably more important than the Allies defeating Hitler, but also much more difficult.

If the people of these nations are allowed to pursue happiness thru liberty resulting in the acquisition of property and wealth and given a fair chance to obtain these, such Godzilla-like scenes we all witnessed on 9-11 will cease.

Watching the French Foreign Minister De Villepin's obstructionist shuttle diplomacy, which found him scampering between Sub-Saharan Third-World African nations, was extremely distasteful to me.

This was totally in contrast to the U.S. magnanimously allowing the French General DeGaul to march into Paris after its fall to the Americans. This is the DeGaul who never actually led any French Troops into battle (let alone a campaign) against the Germans occupying France.

Russia is even more pitiful than France. Still longing for relevance as a world power Mother Russia saw her chance for payback to the U.S. for dismantling the Anti-Ballistic treaty and took it. This is the nation so poor that during its celebration of St Petersburg 300th anniversary it put up fences and bill boards to hide slums and deteriorating buildings. The term Potemkin village springs to mind. This is the former socialistic state that could only dream of that socialism we find in the western states of France and Germany today. The U.S.S.R. never seemed to understand that somebody has to pay for lunch. Russia, now relying on what they feel are past "Glories", doesn't seem to realize that you cannot just announce you are a world power.

Saudi Arabia? Sorry, never was a true ally, see above. Again, this state along with Iran, Syria, et al must be shown the error of its ways.

China? It is at least an enigma wrapped in a mystery and certainly puzzling to me. We share no common interests and no common civilization. Might be useful in the DPRK thing, but only if it feels it has a dog in that fight. Current signs are hopeful, although. We don't need a Japan in search of nukes or more reactors subject to pilfering.

Turkey is spent as an ally. I won't even attempt to explain the extortion attempt.

Lastly, and perhaps, most telling will be the Israeli/Palestinian question. Will it be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides? Let's hope not. Neither side feels satisfied with a good compromise. I had tried to start a number of threads on this shortly before and after the start of U.S./Iraqi hostilities broke out but the timing seemed wrong.

The main source of my hope concerning this conflict is not very substantial but perhaps relevant to recent events. One may not like George Bush his morals his politics or economics or his aversion to sophisticated oratory, but you have to admit when he manages to focus on a problem its like a laser beam, all energy comes to bear. It is like he is some sort of savant. If he is able to concentrate long enough and bring the full weight of American pressure to bear perhaps we can make headway on this problem.

Ariel Sharon's latest statement to his cabinet is encouraging but the Israelis would be well advised to aggressively pursue this peace initiative with vigor. Currently, demographics favor Israelis (52%) while Palestinians (48%) are the minority. By 2007 these figures will have been reversed. What happens if the PLO changes its tactics and simply asks for one-person one-vote?

At that time how successful will hard line American proponents of Israel and Israelis themselves be in arguing against self-determination and universal suffrage for all residing in the area? Remember South Africa's apartheid? Of course the Israelis could always revert to former measures and increase its IDF and buy more weapons from...who?

Thanks for a comprehensive description of the situation. I doubt that it will satisfy those who are focused on the failure to find WMD, to the exclusion of other factors. However it is clear enough that, as a result of our intervention;

The prospects for long-term stability in the Gulf region are much improved;

The potential for a significant breakthrough in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has at last been achieved;

Our leverage with respect to North Korea and Iran is greatly increased;

A dangerous real or potential source of funds and weapons to terrorist movements has been eliminated;

And a cruel tyrant has been removed from the backs of the Iraqi people.

That is not a bad return for our effort.

It is difficult to conceive that (1) Saddam would knowingly fail to promptly and fully satisfy the UN inspectors if he knew he was free of WMD and in compliance with Security Council resolutions;

(2) that even a "neo-con" U.S. administration would knowingly falsify intelligence and make assertions about WMD that it knew were false and that would inevitably become public knowledge.

These absurd contradictions, of course, don't prove anything. It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that some administration figures became victims of their own expectations in analysing the intelligence data. If so this is a serious fault.

Deception and dissimulation are fundamental elements of statecraft.

We should not become too exorcised over them.

Mamajuana is right: "The triumphant, victorious attitude that was expected as an aftermath to this incursion is changing into a defensive position.