Thanks for the questions, jj. I'm afraid, however, the K piece is basically, the "when did you stop beating your spouse" kinds of questions.
Let me offer a very brief response to your question.
First, the Bush administration now has a dangerous international reputation. I gather that's not debatable.
Second, because they have advanced so many reasons for an Iraq invasion, some of which turned out not to be feasible or factual, their justifications are now viewed with great suspicion. Perhaps that's debatable but remember the point is about global perceptions of the Bush administration, not simply yours.
Third, the only way the Bush folk can invade with even the semblance of a cloak of legitimacy is, now, with some sort of minimal approval at the UNSC. On this last point, I make it as a momentary political observation. They actually have no choice. They can invade, of course, and appear to be intent on doing so; but, without the minimal UNSC approval, cannot gain some sort of cloak of legitimacy to do so.
Fourth, without the global legitimacy, they will have a very difficult time gaining such at home. The primary lesson of the Vietnam War, in my view, is that such invasions should not be undertaken without widespread domestic support. I think that view is widespread in the military leadership as well.
Fifth, without the widespread legitimacy a lot of things get a great deal more difficult, support from Arab countries, the immediate period after invasion in which the US will need a great deal of help from a great many other countries.
Well, that's enough for now. |
