Interesting that NOW that after all of the undermining and subversion of the UN sanctions and resolutions against Saddam, and outright hostility and hatred directed towards US attempts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq, the Europeans are FINALLY waking up to the possibility that the US might just wash its hands of Iraq.
Another example of the old adage: "Be careful what you ask for, you might just get it".
Europeans Vindicated But Fearful About Iraq
Leaders Fear U.S. Failure Would Encourage Terror
By Glenn Frankel and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page A16
LONDON -- For European leaders who opposed the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq, this is a moment of conflicting emotions: They feel a sense of vindication and yet, as violence escalates there, they are deeply troubled by the prospect of American failure.
Many fear that a U.S. humiliation in Iraq could propel the United States back into a post-Vietnam War shell of quasi-isolationism, emboldening terrorists and dictators around the world, political leaders and analysts in Berlin, Brussels, London and Paris said.
There is widespread agreement about what went wrong -- that the United States, backed by a handful of allies such as Britain, rushed into war without international consensus and without proper planning about how to govern and rebuild the country once the opening round of conflict ended.
But Europeans are much less certain about where to go from here. Virtually all endorse turning over political power to Iraqis as soon as possible. Many would like to see the United Nations take a more active role. But no one knows how to deal with the immediate security crisis. Most European leaders find themselves on the sidelines, unwilling to earmark funds or troops to a foundering cause they did not sign up for in the first place.
"This is a war which should not have taken place," said Francois Heisbourg, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris and an adviser to the French Foreign Ministry. "They say, 'you break it, you keep it.' Well, the Americans really have broken it, and I don't see how we can put it back together."
(Hawk's note: But isn't it just as credible to argue that the years of subverting or opposing the intent of UN resolutions to restore peace and stability to the region that, through Iraqi compliance with cease accords, ALSO BROKE THE SYSTEM?)
France, which led the opposition to the war in the U.N. Security Council last spring, insists that the U.S. occupation is the root cause of the continuing violence, and that Paris will not commit money or troops until there is an Iraqi government in place that requests French help, according to Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
In interviews this week, he reiterated France's position that the United Nations must take control of Iraq's political transition, and suggested that the American decision this week to speed up the timetable for self-government was still inadequate.
(Hawk's note: And EXACTLY what plan has the French offered to implement such a change?.. Nada..)
Germany, which also opposed the war, has maintained relative silence, offering neither support nor criticism. "We're not just on the sidelines -- we're not in the process at all," said Reinhardt Rummel of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.
Even European allies that took part in or supported the war -- chief among them Britain, Spain, Poland and Italy -- are not eager to commit more troops. The government of Italy, which lost 19 troops and civilians in a suicide attack in the southeastern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah on Wednesday, is under growing domestic pressure to reduce its troop commitment. British officials are concerned that their 10,000 troops in southern Iraq may be next on the target list.
"There's still quite a pronounced feeling among many Europeans that the Americans got themselves into this mess so why should we extend our blood and treasure to get them out," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform in London. "It's not that they want the Americans to fail. But I just don't see any European politician winning votes by saying let's give the Americans four or five billion dollars and 10,000 troops."
European foreign ministers are waiting for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's visit to Brussels this week to assess whether the Bush administration is serious about changing its attitude and "internationalizing" the political transition in Iraq, said a European diplomat in Brussels, who asked not to be named. "The visit will be more for Powell to tell us how the thinking is evolving," the diplomat said.
On this side of the Atlantic, many believe the United States is still determined to control the process in Iraq, allowing Europeans to participate only if they are willing to do as they are told. "We don't want a failure, because a failure would be too damaging to our security," said Guillaume Parmentier of the French International Relations Institute. "But if the price of not failing is having to share the risks without any share of the decision-making, it's a price not worth paying. It's dangerous to be in an operation you have no control over."
(Hawk's note: The level of influence they have in making decisions should correspond with their level of effort, politically, financially, and militarily. And I've seen nothing from US statements that suggest otherwise.. Someone has to be in control in the country, and their has to be a unified face).
Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, who will help host President Bush's state visit here this week, said he did not think the Americans would cut and run from Iraq if the situation continued to deteriorate. "I do not believe the president would ever accept that," Blair said in an interview with American reporters Tuesday.
Others are less certain. "People are asking themselves how long the Americans want to stay committed," said one Brussels-based European diplomat. "Everybody knows clearly the electoral timetable in the U.S."
(Hawk's Note: Yep.. And Bush could credibly argue that European opponents of enforcing the UN resolutions were responsible for encouraging resistance by Baathists).
washingtonpost.com
Con't in next post: |
