(a) You can bribe the other country, but that doesn't go far enough to make them do something that would destabilize themselves. (b) You can use your power to convince them that being your ally is a good idea, but as I've noted on this thread, US power in terms of conquering enemy territory and changing the minds of the locals is nearly zero. (c) You can get them to sign on as allies because what you want is what they want, but since the basic problem is destabilization, this is not possible in this case. (d) But if you can get them to be sympathetic towards you, you're in like flint.
How about (e) you convince your allies that you are going in anyway and you don't need their help, but they are free to choose sides with you, the winner, or with the other guy, the loser? Smart governments go with a winner.
Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq has defeated us in the sympathy contest... We had our victory (in Kuwait), and if we'd been magnanimous the sympathies would be with us
To be magnanimous in victory, first you must have a victory. We didn't have one in 1991 because Saddam never fell as Our Friends the Saudis assured us he would. Besides, the world's sole superpower is never going to win a sympathy contest anywhere.
That being said, we can lessen Iraq's sympathy victories by defeating them, revealing what a horrendous tyrant Saddam was (we won't even need to make anything up, there), and then being magnanimous in victory.
The correct Iraq strategy would have been ... to announce that the US was unilaterally ending its p---ing match with Iraq. This is not an admission of defeat
Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. Arab politics can turn even full-scale defeats into political victories. What you propose would have provided Saddam with an absolute triumph, survivial and victory agains the Great Satan. If you don't believe Saddam would have proclaimed himself a second Saladin on the basis of such a triumph throughout the Arab world, you haven't been following Arab politics. |
