U.S. Election Results Make Iraq War All But Inevitable
stratfor.biz
Nov 06, 2002
Summary
The powerful showing by Republicans in the Nov. 5 U.S. mid-term elections highlights the chasm between U.S. and European public opinion over Iraq. And though European leaders may hold the final option for avoiding a war in their hands, paradoxically, the strength of European public opposition to war will keep them from using it. In more ways than one, an attack on Iraq is now inevitable, and a further deterioration in trans-Atlantic relations is likely.
Analysis
The Republican Party scored an impressive victory in the U.S. mid-term elections Nov. 5, strengthening its hold on the House of Representatives and, more significantly, capturing control of the Senate from the Democrats. The magnitude of the victory -- especially coming in a mid-term election and during a time of economic uncertainty -- can be explained only by the tremendous popularity of U.S. President George W. Bush.
The GOP jumped on Bush's broad back, and he carried it to victory. Perhaps more than anything, the election demonstrated the strength of U.S. public support for his administration's policies on national security, including plans to confront Iraq.
By strengthening Bush, the election virtually ensures a war with Iraq. It's possible that a full capitulation by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could help him avoid a military conflict with Washington, but for that to happen, European leaders would have to side firmly and publicly with the United States in order to isolate Hussein.
Ironically, the European public could block any final chance for a peaceful resolution, as they won't stand for their leaders moving closer to Bush, especially now that the president is stronger. So without such a public pro-U.S. stance by Europe, Iraq will continue to scheme, and the United States will continue to move forward toward war.
The American voters spoke Nov. 5, and the message was that they care more about national security than about any other issue, including the economy. The election showed that, by and large, Americans trust Bush and the Republicans to better handle their security, and the results will be perceived in Washington and overseas as a domestic green light for action against Iraq.
American popular support for Bush and his policies contrasts sharply with public opinion in Europe. Bush is held in wide contempt across much of Europe, as is the administration's foreign policy. But it's not just about the president. More fundamentally, Europeans have much different views than Americans on the need for immediate action against international threats.
Consider a recent study by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States, cited in the November issue of Foreign Policy magazine. In that study, which compared opinions in six European countries to those in the United States, Europeans and Americans ranked the severity of global threats quite differently.
Whereas more than 90 percent of Americans saw the threat posed by international terrorism as critical, less than 65 percent of Europeans held the same opinion. The numbers were similar regarding the threat posed by Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (85 percent to 58 percent), the Israeli-Arab conflict (67 to 42 percent) and Islamic fundamentalism (61 to 49 percent). Europeans generally feel more secure than do Americans, and thus less supportive of pre-emptive action.
Pragmatically, European leaders realize that Washington is not backing down and that it would be in their best interests to get a seat at the table. That helps explain why France is quietly helping the United States by allowing the establishment of a U.S. Joint Task Force base in Djibouti, an area dominated by the French.
However, Paris still is not backing down publicly on the wording of a U.N. Security Council resolution over Iraq. Despite France's significant economic interests in Iraq and the practical reasons to play ball with the United States, Paris is constrained by public opinion and can't openly stand with the White House.
The gap in U.S.-European public opinion will widen further as Europeans ponder a domestically unencumbered White House. The European public will increase pressure on its leaders to more forcefully constrain the United States on Iraq, even though such opposition is not going to derail the train. So paradoxically, public opposition in Europe to a unified stand against Iraq could scuttle the last chance to avoid a war.
At this point, there is really only one option for avoiding war in Iraq, and it involves some kind of voluntary regime change by Hussein. Though highly unlikely, that is not out of the question if Hussein, a consummate survivor, runs completely out of options.
Until now Hussein has continued to cling to the hope that Europe, together with the Saudis, could save his skin by stalling the United States. If Europe turns publicly against him and brings Saudi Arabia with it, Hussein could be left feeling helpless and totally isolated. At that point, European leaders together with the Saudis might be able to convince Hussein and/or his immediate circle that a negotiated regime change is the only way to survive.
Hussein might finally consider voluntary exile -- something he refused in 1991 -- and war could be averted. But boxed in by public opinion, European leaders likely won't make the public stand with the United States needed to put enough pressure on Hussein.
Though Washington and Europe will end up on the same side over Iraq when the shooting starts, the process of getting there could do some serious damage to the trans-Atlantic relationship. One need only look at the serious deterioration in the American-German friendship as an example. With their publics increasingly far apart over Iraq, political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic could be pulled apart too. |
