Hi John Cavanaugh; Good questions. Thanks for asking.
Re: "1) What would you do with Saddam (if anything)?"
I would continue to supply his neighbors with the assistance that they (publicly) ask for. The administration is claiming that Saddam's neighbors privately want him removed, but publicly are in fear of his forces. But the administration also claims that Saddam's forces are half as strong now as they were at the invasion of Kuwait, and those same neighbors were brave enough to publicly ask for assistance at that time. Saudi Arabia, for example, is the largest purchaser of US arms. That they would be in fear of Iraq, which has been subject to sanctions for 12 years, is ridiculous.
So my conclusion is that the administration is practicing selective perception with regards to the neighbors of Iraq. Perhaps a few officials of those countries say something in private that would indicate a need to remove Saddam, but the undeniable fact is that there is less public desire to fight another war than there was before the Gulf war.
The reason to insist on multilateralism is not just because the US would like the military burden to be shared. There is, in addition, a burden of understanding, and it is much easier for a country to unilaterally come to a wrong conclusion than for a group of countries to multilaterally come to a wrong conclusion. This principle, which is based on the all too human tendency to self deception, is the basic principle of Democracy. We violated it in Vietnam, and the result was a lose. I don't think we should be throwing away this principle now.
If our allies conclude that Saddam must go, and that there must be a war to do it, we will be ready. Until then, it is not a good idea.
My analysis of the situation is that it is unlikely that Saddam's neighbors will ask us to invade Iraq, but if this changes, then I will be in favor of our assisting them. But they have to give public support, with troops and all that. A few whispered hints shared by slippery diplomats in secretive meetings is not the kind of justification that countries like the United States, which is based on freedom, fairness and openness use to go to war. War is a big deal, it's not like buying a loaf of bread.
Re: "2) Do we have, or should we take, responsibility to take action in situations like the Balkans and Rwanda ... ?"
There are conditions where unilateral actions are justifiable. For example, the Mexican war was fought by the US quite unilaterally. But of course Mexico is a neighbor of the US, Iraq is not.
My feeling on the Balkans is that it was wrong to run an air campaign. What we should have done was either move in on the ground and perform a regime change, or leave them the hell alone. What was good about the action was that it was multilateral. But it seems to me that Europe is a big boy, and should be able to take care of trivial problems in Europe without our assistance. How many times has Europe helped us with regard to Cuba, for example? While I disagree with our (unilateral and therefore ineffective) blockade of Cuba, the fact is that Europe gives us zero support on this.
With Rwanda, I am more inclined to see US action as being easily justified, though the fact that there was no action makes it hard to critique. Certainly bombing Rwanda from the air would have had little effect other than to make a few more people hate us. But Rwanda does not have neighbors that are militarily capable of carrying that burden. The Balkans do.
Re: "... (as a rich powerful country?" The US got rich and powerful over a two century period. Heavy spending on armaments, and a large peacetime overseas presence of US troops (now in 130 countries) did not occur during the years that they US economy was most vibrant (i.e. average growth per year from 1776 to 1945). Instead, the US grew strongest and fastest when it was isolated from the rest of the world militarily.
When US troops get sent overseas, I think they should mostly be there to kick butt on our enemies, or in support of our allies. I don't think they should be sent overseas in order to maintain corrupt regimes, or sit around making ineffective attacks against countries like Iraq. I can see a reason for sending US troops overseas in order to help train other country's armed forces, but the current situation has gotten way out of hand. Our troops have so many overseas training assignments that this thread has been continuously bombarded by rumors that the next week's training assignment is really the start of the big war with Iraq. This made a lot of sense during the cold war, but during peacetime it is ridiculous.
In addition, we're now having maneuvers or defense agreements / assistance with both sides of several long time regional conflicts (Pakistan and India, Israel and the Arab states), and I find this rather bizarre. What's going on here? The Indians and Pakistanis are mortal enemies. How can we be allies of both sides? As long as they've got each other's throats to threaten they are pretty much useless to us as allies elsewhere.
Another example, Greece and Turkey are now clearly getting along better, and part of that might be associated with their both being allies of the US. But there are plenty of other ancient enemies that have become friends without the US being simultaneous allies of both sides. My guess is that Greece and Turkey are now getting along better because the time that one was a colony of the other, or they were at war, is slowly slipping into the forgotten past. And at the same time, the real force for world-wide peace, US "cultural imperialism", has altered both countries in such a way as to make them more similar, and more dependent on peaceful economic interactions.
The real power of the US is in its culture.
-- Carl |
