Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Henri, exquisitly written essay. I am confounded in the attempt to find flaw with the logic or conclusions.

There are some foreign policies exercised in this Administration and the problems are 1) that there are more than one for each international issue at play, as you point out between the Pentagon and Whitehouse, and 2) they are all aimed at coercion to follow the leader, as opposed to anything remotely resembling the diplomacy of common cause and mutual benefit.

Well said.

That is a brilliant piece.

The tone of this essay is very cutsie, but it obscures some important issues. It presents a very US-centric view of international relations. France, Germany and Russia (please don’t say Europe when most of Europe was actually quite helpful both in the run-up to Iraq and now) are not helpless dance partners who exist only in the context of being invited to things by the US. They aren’t naive belles of the ball. They made very specific policy decisions to protect Saddam. Because they knew that Saddam’s odious debts to prop himself up in both luxury and his ability to terrorize his people might very well fail to be honored by a legitimate government of the population which he oppressed, it seems a reasonable inference that one of the major reasons they opposed us in Iraq was to protect their investments.

They made the decision to prop up Saddam from 1991 to the moment of his actual fall. As recently as January 2002 France, Germany and Russia were attempting to dismantle sanctions and resume normal relations with Saddam’s Iraq. The idea that this decision and the other decisions to protect Saddam’s rule might not have consequences is more shocking to me than the idea that it should have consequences.

By the way, why do you think that these countries will be less likely to negotiate on the Saddam debts and engage in other forms of help now? They know that there is a very real possibility that Iraq will repudiate the debts. This would be a disaster for Russia and France, but it wouldn’t be a disaster at all for Iraq. If the US signals difficult roads ahead for those who choose to obstruct us in this matter, it may very well increase the possibility of aid in the near future.

The sanctions were harming the people of Iraq more than Sadddam, he was after all able to “prop himself up in both luxury” and retained his “ability to terrorize his people”, inspite of them. It is dishonest to suggest that opposition to the way in which the sanctions were being opperated was equivalent to supporting Saddam.

I think it is just as likely that Germany, Russia and France opposed the invasion because the case for war was so weak as out of economic selfishness. Why should they agree to a destruction of values and an international system that saw war as the very last alternative and not something that can be used for the advancement of one country’s narrow-minded aims?

If Europe was in anyway helpful to the war effort it was clearly against the will of the vast majority of its citizens. The nations that did openly oppose it were reflecting the will of their people. Which is kind of ironic when it turns out that the war was about democracy and not really about WMD after all.

Bob, I agree with everything you said up to “that the war was about democracy”. I believe, and in the absence of all those confidential national security documents and memos pertaining to the real reasons we went there, belief is all one has access to, that establishing a strategic military presence in the Middle East in the heart of the oil rich nations, and retribution for an assasination attempt upon our President’s father, were the real reasons we chose to go it alone, if need be, to take out Saddam H.

I reognize your reference to democracy as the reason was facetious. Just wanted to add 2 cents.

“The sanctions were harming the people of Iraq more than Sadddam, he was after all able to “prop himself up in both luxury” and retained his “ability to terrorize his people”, inspite of them. It is dishonest to suggest that opposition to the way in which the sanctions were being opperated was equivalent to supporting Saddam.”

This may be why you would oppose sanctions, but if that was the reason why France, Germany, and Russia opposed them they wouldn’t have been suggesting normalizing relations, they would have come up with a new containment regime. They did not. Your analysis also completely ignores the very active complicity that the UN had with supporting Saddam’s luxury through the “Food for Oil” program which they knew was not being used to relieve the population but was rather being used to build the huge palaces.

It seems odd that you are so willing to ascribe economic calculations as the main basis for US decision-making regarding getting rid of Saddam but you are so quick to dismiss economic calculations for French and German decisions to protect him.

Iam not sure if economic calculations were the main basis for US decision-making regarding Iraq. But I am suggesting that I don’t believe that economic calculations were the main source of German, French and Russian opposition. There just seemed to be so many other things wrong with the case for war outside of these concerns.

As for the sanctions, I accept some of your points, but I think it was clear that they were not opperating effectively.

I disagree strongly with your tentative suggestion that a difficult road ahead for those in oppostion will somehow smooth the way for rebuilding Iraq or repairing US/World relations.

The conservatives here are defending it by asserting that the nations should have paid their dues if they wanted the benefits of membership. But we are asking their help, after they told us pretty much what the result would be.

Why should we be asking them to pay for our mistake if there is no reconciliation from us for their opposition to it? That’s just ego.

Are we asking for their help? I believe we asked for help and were turned down. I believe the main reason we were turned down was because we didn’t have an agressive enough turn-over schedule. We now have a schedule much in line with the formal French proposal (which IMHO is way too quick) and still no help was forthcoming. We asked. They declined and denounced.

Doesn’t sound to me like this denial of contract bids will cause them to decline more. They have already given repeated definite negative responses.

This is a twisting path to be followed. But, prior to invasion, Saddam ran a very tight ship and terrorists didn’t have a very long life span in Iraq, unless you include his henchmen in the definition of terrorists. But his henchmen were not threatening neighboring countries nor the U.S.

Then we invade, topple his regime, and say things like we are on a Crusade, and erroneously cite WMD, Terrorism, and imminent threat as reasons for the invasion. Upon demonstration that the reasons cited for invasion were false, we give terrorists the propaganda they need to point to the U.S. as an imperialist nation bent on regime and cultural change to remake nations in our own image.

Now Iraq is a focal point for terrorists, and our troops, allied troops, and Iraqi citizens are the targets, and we find terrorist recruitments on the increase because of our actions decision to go it alone if need be on our holy cause.

We are not without achieved gains, however. We have a huge military presence in the Middle East, as strategic feather in the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s hats, and we are in easy striking distance of major oil producing nations, which we are very dependent upon.

Other than this gain, we have nothing but losses in American and allied troops, a 7 Trillion Dollar national debt (and growing), an indefinite future of costly occupation, and loss of international good will, diplomatic and political leadership to show for it.

Someone got shortchanged here. I think it was us. Not because we invaded Iraq, but, because of how we proceeded to do so. And in November, we can likely look forward to another 4 years of this kind of decision making, accounting, and leadership.

But it is not completely fair to place all of the blame on the Administration, we elected it, and we the people must bear the biggest part of the blame and, of course, the cost.

“But, prior to invasion, Saddam ran a very tight ship and terrorists didn’t have a very long life span in Iraq, unless you include his henchmen in the definition of terrorists.”

What about Abu Abbas? What about the years of harbouring Abu Nidal and letting him train terrorists before his ‘suicide’?

If Iraq doesn’t get well on its way to becoming a healthy society in the next 5-8 years, I’ll conceed that we got shortchanged. I think Iraq will be fine in the long run and that it is already better than when Saddam was ruling, but only time can tell.

Sebastion,

1983: Abu Nidal is thrown out of Baghdad, as Iraq needs US support in the war against Iran. Abu Nidal moves to Syria, where he starts to cooperate with the government.

2002 August: Dies in Baghdad, Iraq under circumstances that quickly become questioned. Iraqi authorities claim that he had entered Iraq illegally, and when discovered by officials, he shot himself.

It hardly appears he has been harbored as a terrorist by Saddam Hussein for 2 decades.

As for Abu Abbas, he was found in Iraq where he was hiding. President Bush said he was given safe harbor by Iraq, but, no evidence is available to support that proposition. And absolutely no evidence has even been mentioned that Abbas was sponsoring and actively involved in terrorist actions while in Iraq. His passports were confiscated and no available to even determine if he was there under his own name.

Exchanging American lives and a huge burden on American tax payers is hardly justified by the need to liberate Iraqi’s from a tyrant. If that is the justification, God help us, because we have dozens of other nations to invade ahead of us for the same reason. Perpetual war may be good for presidential incumbency, but, the cost of playing liberator for all oppressed peoples in the world is not a legitimate reason for spending American lives and multi-billions of dollars per invasion. I just can’t buy it.

We had a NATO vote promising to put all the resources of the member countries at our disposal for responding to the terrorist who caused 9/11. The UN was willing to help us with Afghanistan. We told them no thanks.

Brilliant, isn’t it? Then we steamroll the Iraq issue, right over these people, and expect them to come back and help us after all we’ve done. And then, when we’re trying to get them to shoulder some of the cost, we reveal to them that we aren’t going to let their companies participate.

Oh we talk about coalitions, but for the most part, our coalition is composed of a bunch of countries that barely contributed anything, and one country where the political future of our ally is in doubt because of the help he gave us.

The message out there, is that America, though strong, is commanded by weak, incompetent, and lazy people, and that the public is gullible enough to go along with anything.

The message is, it doesn’t pay to be a past, present or future ally of the Americans.

So, go on complementing Bush’s foreign policy. Frankly, I think it’s embarrassing how much Bush allows his people to run at the mouth. Or himself.

Every dance pair has a leader - they are not equal. They are mutually necessary, but someone always leads. That is what the US is doing. Otherwise, you want the French to lead? Listening is OK, but final say needs to be ours. That is what Bush is doing. And he isn’t just dancing to have fun. He’s in it to win. Maybe it’s the other people’s objectives that need clarification?

I doubt anybody is in it to get the short end of the stick.

I guess the metaphor here is with long-range marksmanship. If you aim straight for the target, you won’t hit it. The bullet drops in flight, the winds push the bullet this way and that, and other factors weigh in. You have to get a feel for things, and not just try to force the bullet to go where it won’t.

Bush has an unfortunate habit of not letting the facts confuse him when he’s trying to get his way.

Stephen, I believe those qualities are called resolute and unwavering, qualities admired by many conservatives, regretfully in times of great change that demand flexibility and new thinking and solutions. Your point is well made IMO.

Calls for flexibility are always directed to the US. From time to time it would be nice to see France or Germany stretch a little—and I don’t just mean by violating their economic rules to the detriment of the rest of the EU.

It doesn’t matter what France and Germany are doing. We need flexibility to deal with domestic issues, and ideological rigor mortis prevents such solutions from even being considered by our government.