HistoricalMullet: Phew! At least we have Portugal!
On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq the “Coalition of the Willing” leaves much to be desired, as does the case for war on the basis of an imminent threat. This is the last post in the “Between 9/11 and the Iraq War” Historical Mullet series. Original discussion is included in the first comment.
I was worried yesterday that the Azores summit might reveal the Coalition of the Willing(tm) might not have enough international support. Fortunately Portugal, that colonial powerhouse of the 15th-18th Centuries is solidly behind us.
Of course all we need from a military standpoint for our coallition is a series of numbers and letters: 82nd, 101st, 3rd, and the strategic air wing.
For the record, and more seriously, I am for disarming Iraq and a regime change but not in this manner. The threat presented by Saddam (in my opinion) does not meet a threshold of utility which compensates for the harm done to international relations and world opinion of the United States. In other words the dangers Saddam might represent are not equal to the actual damage being done to the United States internationally.
My main fear right now are along a few variables: Turkey occupies norther Iraq, Israeli retaliates against a SCUD attack, Iran provokes the Shiite majority in an ethnic uprising. All of these variables can be handled diplomatically but the failure of the Bush administration to understand and utilize actual diplomacy doesn’t give me hope.
Finally although I am against invading Iraq at this time, I firmly believe that once we go in we need to stay to see the job through successfully, be that 2,3, or 5 years, whatever it takes. It’s one of the reasons I started exploring down the path of the military and OCS: becuase of our actions now, our country will be more at risk and need qualified individuals to serve to protect it from that risk over the next few years. No final decision yet on that front though.
Tim C.
About Author
Tim C.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Question for you then” maestrodolce March 17 2003, 08:36:04 UTC
What had the Taliban done prior to the September 11th attacks?
Potential dangers are dangers none the less. Especially when one considers that Saddam has never built a weapon he has not used.
“Re: Question for you then” chapel_of_words March 17 2003, 10:43:09 UTC
>What had the Taliban done prior to the September 11th attacks?
Affirmatively and verifiably supported a terrorist network responsible for several attacks on the US (Cole, twin Embassies).
I don’t buy that Saddam was in league with terrorist previous to having his regime threatened by the US. He’s a secular pragmatist with a long history of murdering religious figures (Shiites). Osama himself called for the overthrow of Saddam in one of his recent radio addresses. However I don’t doubt now that US pressure and imminent invasion have created the self-fulfilling prophecy that Saddam will (if he can) resort to terrorism.
The problem with the US case is they pushed too hard to prove too little on the wrong guy when it comes to WMD. What remains of the initial triple-threat: nuclear, biological, and checmial WMD are the unaccounted for stockpiles of VX and Anthrax.
Nuclear capability, delivery capability (beyond several hundred km), and terrorist connections all have proven to have vaporous (if at all) intelligence backing them. On the other hand Iran and North Korea have far more factually present WMD threats within those countries; Iran is a proven exporter of militant terrorism and North Korea a proven exporter of arms technology; neither has ever been proven of Iraq.
>Potential dangers are dangers none the less.
Going to war on a potential danger is just as risky as doing nothing at all. The fallacy of the argument that it’s “invasion or complete inaction” is that there are interim steps of applied force which have not been utilized. This is where Bush’s diplomacy has failed, in his binary world there is either all out war or complete inaction, when in reality there are lots of steps of applied force available in between. Diplomacy is NOT the pursuit of peace (which I cringe everytime some overpaid commentator equates that). Diplomacy is the application of policy, negotiation AND force (both implied and applied) to acheive a goal.
Now a pithy question for you: Were the 50,000 lives lost in Vietnam worth it to prove that the “potential dangers” of the domino theory were incorrect?
Tim C.
xambrius March 17 2003, 08:37:40 UTC
The spectre of Dubya’s diplomatic incompetency will haunt US foreign policy for several presidents to come. 🙁
—
Tim Harris
The Seeker
Time Lord