Tench Re...Iraq: Is Peace an Option?
Very good read for the most part. I see most of the replies said good article, but failed to disect the good from the bad. Here is my take.
In our view, this is not what the Bush administration is going to do -- because it cannot afford to do so from either a strategic or a political standpoint. There is no doubt within the Bush administration that the protracted run-up to war has allowed opposition to solidify, and that the international political process leading up to war has become unmanageable.
This is probably very true. While everyone wants the US to get UN approval, that effort has seriously compromised the solidity of the alliance. The meanness of the protests, calling Gw Hitler re-incarnated, oil thirsty etc, has forced either side to hold their ground, with no compromise possible. I don't see getting a UN resolution a possibility; and it is unlikely any country in the future will seek one; thus leaving the UN powerless to influence future conflicts.
At root, France, Russia and the rest are not particularly concerned about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. They are deeply concerned, however, about the strategic consequences of a U.S. victory in Iraq, which would leave the United States the defining power in the region. These countries oppose the strategic outcome of the war and are using the publicly stated justification for military action -- WMD -- as their reason to oppose war.
I think he hits the nail on the head here. And I must admit that I have been slow on the uptake, when Al and Ted have stated that Europe fears the US more than they fear Saddam. If Al's and Ted's and the authors contention that Europe fears the US more than Saddam, that fear is an economic fear, rather than a military one. Gw has never threatened anyone in Europe militarily, but we are business competitors. But their contention that Gw has gone against our allies is wrong; as Europe has employed tariffs and kept a closed market for 20 yrs or better; so the Eu really is a competitor, not an ally, in the business sense; and it is the business sense Europe fears the US. Europe is in a no win proposition here, whether the US wins or loses the peace in the middle east after the war. Europe fears that the US will win the war, and if GW has his way, create a new Europe in the middle east. Europe fears the US now, just as the US feared a mighty resurgent Japan, with its just in time manufacturing in the 70's. During the 70's a stagnant US had a lot of Japan bashing here also. Europe has already stagnated for the last 10 yrs, while the US has focused its energy upon the pacific basin, which has helped give the US the fastest growth in the 90s. A resurgent middle east, aligned closely with the US, as Europe used to be, would be a competitive behemouth that Europe couldn't cope with, even with an enlarged EU. Europe has suffered 10 yrs of stagnation, with just a resurgent pacific basin, throw a middle east in, and EU has no chance to challenge economically. On the other hand, If the peace goes awry, as many fear, a resurgent OBL would threaten Europe, with its large muslim populations. So the only course for Europe is to maintain the status quo; and therefore have inspections last forever. There s a huge difference between the US, Japanese rivalry of the 70's, and the current rift between the US and Europe. That is the national security element.
These countries oppose the strategic outcome of the war and are using the publicly stated justification for military action -- WMD -- as their reason to oppose war. Allowing the WMD issue to become the touchstone was clearly a fundamental miscalculation by the Washington.
Frankly, I think the author is wrong here. Powell and his UN push, made the US embrace the WMD as the reason, because the UN had all of those resolutions to ban them, and therefore the US embraced that as the stated reason, and didn't enlarge the reasons, to keep the UN focused on Saddam's failure to follow the resolutions. Without the UN push, the US could have framed the war differently. The US would have probably won, if Europe didn't have all of these economic worries, keeping them from supporting 1441.
. He cannot afford to be weak after after his marginal and disputed victory in 2000. Therefore, for Bush, the domestic consequences of not going to war would be devastating: His opponents would get the credit for stopping the war and his supporters would feel betrayed.
Very true. Ironic that the war protestors have taken away GW's abilities to back away at this point, but the meanness of the attacks, and their demonization of Gw has forced GW to prove them wrong, or become irrelevant himself. It is like when a couple gets personal with its insults. After awhile divorce is the only option, as trust can't be restored, as the wounds go too deep. The peaceniks characterizations of GW as a war monger, and oil thirsty scavenger have made compromise impossible.
Invading Iraq was a piece of this strategy. Iraq, the most strategic country in the region, would provide a base of operations from which to pressure countries like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq was a piece of the solution, but far from the solution as a whole. Nevertheless, the conquest and occupation of Iraq would be at once a critical stepping-stone, a campaign in a much longer war and a proof of concept for dealing with al Qaeda.
If the United States does not invade Iraq, it will have to generate a new war-fighting strategy against al Qaeda. The problem for Washington is that it doesn't have another strategy, except the homeland defense/global covert war strategy, which has not proved clearly effective by itself since Sept. 11. If the United States abandons the operation in Iraq, follow-on operations against enabler of al Qaeda will be enormously more difficult
This is very true. However, he left out the fact that Saddam forced the US responses, which lead to Al qaeda. Without Saddam, there wouldn't have been any troops in Kuwait and SA, no sanctions, and no no fly zones; which are the main reasons given by OBL for his jihad. |
