Prioriy # 1 Established early on, makes glad-handing to the UN way down the list
What exactly is priority #1? If it is confronting the terrorist network, then removing Saddam should be way down the list, since he is in no way an essential part of that network, and removing him will have no significant limiting influence on that network.
We are not talking about "glad-handing to the UN". We are talking about taking the necessary action to sustain alliances that we need to confront problems much more dangerous than Saddam: North Korea for one, the international terrorist net for another.
Lets back up a bit to what Mr Bush said :"If you are not with us ( in fighting terrorists) you are against us", or close enough to those words.
Those were among the stupidest words ever spoken by an American politician, and that’s saying something. Trying to reduce the complexities of the real world to the kind of simplicity that plays well in a sound bite is always dumb, and this is an example of how dumb it can be.
Where does this statement leave a government that is totally committed to fighting terrorism, but does not believe that the tactics or ordering of priorities that emanate from Washington are likely to be effective? Are they with us, or are they against us? Are we saying that to be “with us” other countries have to support everything we do? Do we want to be the leader of the free world or the neighborhood bully? We need to consider the possibility that those who disagree with us may have some legitimate points on their side, and that the country with the most guns is not necessarily right. We also need to consider that the leaders of other democracies are ultimately accountable to their own people, not to us, and that if we want them to support us, we have to present a program that they can sell to their own people. Ultimately, we need to preserve unity in the fight against terror more than we need to be rid of Saddam. If we get rid of Saddam and divide the free world into a mass of squabbling factions in the process, our real enemies will come out of the process with a net gain.
Which I interpret to mean there would be no politcal manuvering involved, as there has been endlessly since 1992, and to no avail in disarming Saddam. Mr Powell, by taking the proposed action to the UN has clarified who is for or against, who will support or deter our actions, who has been mouthing pleasantries and now goes back on their words and even on their signature on support of Res 1441.
There is ALWAYS political maneuvering involved. There’s maneuvering going on inside Washington, there is maneuvering going on inside the UN, there is maneuvering going on everywhere. If we want to achieve our long-term goals, winning the political maneuver war is as important as anything we do on any battlefield.
There is nothing in 1441 that requires invasion at this time. We had nothing to lose by keeping the troops at home until the entire process had played out. We had nothing to lose by pushing for harder inspections, harsher sanctions, military sanctions short of war. We had nothing to lose by holding invasion as the measure of last resort, rather than the preferred solution. We had nothing to lose – and a good deal, potentially, to gain – by spending another 6 months or a year ratcheting down the pressure, one step at a time, and holding war as the measure of last resort.
Correction: we did have something to lose. We stood to lose the infantile “big swinging dick” image that some of our politicians cherish so deeply.
If we end up sacrificing the leadership of the free world to preserve an image that would sit poorly on a high school student, let alone a nation looked to as a leader, that will surely be recorded as one of the silliest maneuvers in the history of international relations. |
