ild >you like watching what Bush is doing
I certainly don't like watching him, if I do, it's because one has to. Actually, as I mentioned before, I feel quite sorry for him because of the dilemma facing him and his onerous responsibility to make the right decision.
Apropos the question, "I'm trying to come up with any reason for Bush NOT to fight Iraq", in fact, I addressed this a few days ago.
As I see it, he has painted himself in a corner. If he hadn't been shouting so much about regime change, he could have taken the credit, or most of it, for a "reasonably" successful weapons' inspection and brought most of the US soldiers home.
I say reasonably successful, because it is clearly impossibly for Iraq to supply evidence for what they don't have, namely the VX and anthrax. I say "don't have" because, so far, Blix & Co, and the previous inspectors, have not found any evidence of it. Not even a "sniff". Anyway, if I am wrong and Saddam still has that stuff hidden somewhere, there's nothing he can do with it. Those agents are not toys and are certainly not easy to use.
Bush is clearly in a serious predicament because it makes no sense that he chooses to act on his interpretation of a violation of UN Resolution 1441 (and whatever other UN resolutions) when the UN, itself, is still happy to go along with inspections. For this reason, the US, if it does act alone (or with UK etc) and make war on Iraq, will be in violation of the UN Charter and therefore, technically, a war criminal. Even though the US is the world's only superpower, that does not confer on it the right to act in defiance of the UN, whatever anyone may think of the UN.
IMO, if the US was going to make war it should have done it already and without seeking UN approval. Probably the best "reason" for the war would have been that it was acting in "self-defence" and claim a link to 911, however tenuous. Now the US is bogged down in a diplomatic and legal morass which, as I see it, almost compels it to withdraw. This does not mean Bush is a failure nor does it imply that the US is no longer a "super-power". On the contrary, I would maintain that to act with prudence and consideration confers on one even greater strength of purpose and character. Surely, discretion is the better part of valor. And, as I understand the US, it likes always to maintain the moral high ground. In the circumstances, to act in a rash and cavalier manner would certainly not be in its self-interest.
I posted this article a few days ago but it is appropriate to recall it because it underlines the costs of unilateral action.
timesonline.co.uk
>>>In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.” <<<
Unfortunately, GWB has many other advisers who are telling him that he has no other choice but to go to war. |
