I posted this on another forum, but felt it appropriate here. I received it from a friend in Australia. On the subject of our consistency in being inconsistent. c.i.
***************************
re:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5746,ausletters1^^TEXT,00.html
Max Henreich's bald assertions on the question of WMDs (Letters, 20/6) got me thinking. If, instead, the United States had invaded Iraq on the pretext of "liberating the Iraqi people", would the world have been more accepting of pre-emption? Let's look at the implications.
Suppose that there had been an overwhelming groundswell of world public opinion in support of liberation, brought about by an equally concerted (yet sound) campaign by the "coalition of the willing". Despite massive popular support, however, international diplomacy would certainly have opposed any intervention, simply because many governments would see it as potentially signing their own death warrants.
But, even if the cause proved universally popular, most people would have still remained deeply sceptical of American motives. Afterall, the United States is hardly known for sticking its neck out in the name of human rights. Indeed, its history of intervention in other nations' affairs proves quite the opposite: civil liberties are completely dispensible whenever American interests are threatened. Therefore, the age-old question would ring louder than ever: "What is the REAL reason?"
Further, as a rule the people of United States do not support risky foreign adventurism for "no good cause", that is, that which has no benefit to the U.S. itself. And without a cause, the lives of a thousand Iraqis would never have been worth one American life. Bush would never have even tried.
Finally, without the pretext of "self-defence", the United States could never have received United Nations endorsement to threaten another country, leave alone to invade it. National sovereignty has been a tenet of international law since the formation of nations.
To argue, therefore, that the outcome ("liberation") justifies the means (lying and deceit) is to totally ignore the reality of international politics. More seriously, it is an abuse of world public opinion and international law, and it has destroyed any lingering credibility the United States government may have had.
In short, what was done in Iraq can -- and will -- only be done this once. Now, given the Americans' proven record of lying to achieve their doubtful ends, the world cannot be expected to believe any claim the superpower might make in the future -- no matter the veracity of the claims or the level of threat. What then?
