Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Strauss who wrote (21408)	11/16/1998 4:30:00 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

A hollow victory -- FT reports The bombers may have turned back from Iraq, but we should not delude ourselves that we are any nearer a peaceful solution The world is turned upside down. Saddam Hussein is suddenly victim rather than villain. From Paris to Moscow we hear the quiet popping of champagne corks as the Iraqi leader once again outwits the American imperialists and their British stooges. Now the B-52 bombers have been turned back, it is time to take up a new approach. Sanctions should be lifted, Iraq re-admitted to the family of nations. The west should smother Mr Saddam if not with kindness then at least with commerce. I exaggerate. But only slightly. You do not have to count yourself among those who have ever been eager to see the cruise missiles raining down again on Baghdad to be deeply disturbed by the growing ambivalence towards this wicked regime. What is it, I wonder, that leads many Europeans secretly to admire Mr Saddam's brinkmanship? What perversity leads some of them to delight in America's discomfort even if the result is to increase the threat on Europe's doorstep? I am not taking sides here with the unthinking hawks who doubtless populate much of Washington's political and military establishment. If Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can be dismantled by peaceful means, we should all applaud. We must never be beguiled by the stealth fighters, the Tomahawks and the laser-guided bombs that make for the lethal virtual reality of Washington's high-tech warfare. This awesome military machine has not dislodged Mr Saddam and, quite probably, never will. But let us not delude ourselves that events over the weekend have brought us closer to a peaceful resolution. Mr Saddam's assurances are worthless. He will keep the latest pledges only for as long as he judges it convenient. The divisions exposed in the UN security council and the more general mood of weariness in the international community encourage him in that course. Thus Iraq will continue to develop its chemical and biological weapons and the means to visit terror on its neighbours. The inspectors from Unscom will be allowed to resume their task only to the extent that they do not seriously jeopardise that deadly ambition. Iraq's latest letter to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, reads like anything but submission. Mr Annan is a decent man. Sadly, he is emerging from this mess a dupe. I am not suggesting that the moral high ground claimed by the US and Britain is impregnable. Far from it. We all know of the hypocrisy which has infected western policy towards Iraq. Mr Saddam was armed by the very nations that defeated him in Desert Storm. For the US, his military might was long a vital brake on Iranian fundamentalism. For Britain, Iraq was a valuable export market (although France and Germany were still more deliberately careless about what their companies sold to the Baghdad regime). There can be no disguising either the damage Washington has inflicted on its own cause during the eight years since Desert Storm. US acquiescence in Israel's intransigent refusal to respect the terms of the Oslo peace accords has sapped its support in the Arab world. Baghdad must honour UN resolutions. The latest agreement with the Palestinians notwithstanding, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu ignores them with impunity. We cannot blame Israel for Saddam Hussein. We can blame Mr Netanyahu's government for making it harder to act against him. Recriminations, however, solve nothing. To set out such hypocrisies does not answer the present danger. And if we accept that the threat will remain for as long as Mr Saddam is in power, the issue becomes how it best can be contained. Here, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were operating in the real world of least bad options. The rest of us should understand that. The purpose of the US and British bombing missions ordered and then aborted on Saturday was clear enough. The aim was to destroy or degrade enough of Iraq's military capability to remove, for the time being, its capacity to use, or threaten to use, its weapons of mass destruction. Beyond the country's air defences, the targets of what would have been massive strikes over many days were command and control centres, weapons delivery systems, and those units such as the Republican Guard that sustain Mr Saddam's personal power. The devastation might have dislodged the Iraqi leader, but probably not. And doubtless many innocent civilians would have died. To observe that this is an imperfect response does not offer us the alternative. And here I am baffled as to why the apparent humbling of the world's remaining superpower is cause in some quarters for satisfaction rather than consternation. Lest we forget the geography, Mr Saddam is a much more direct threat to Europe than to the US. At one extreme, opponents of bombing seem to say we should simply abandon all attempts at coercion. Let's replace the stick with the carrot. Lift sanctions and trade again with Iraq. Encourage Mr Saddam to feed his people, remind the country's middle classes of the benefits of peace and prosperity. Invite him to speak at the UN. What could he gain then from going to war? As well-intentioned as it may be, merely to state this case is to underline its dangerous naivety. It becomes more absurd still when its advocates sigh that life would be so much easier if the US had the wit to assassinate Mr Saddam. At the other end of the spectrum comes the suggestion that the cold war doctrine of deterrence is the key. Sure, Baghdad may develop lethal germ and nerve agents. But the US should tell Mr Saddam that their use would invite fearful retaliation. The Tomahawks would carry nuclear warheads. Iraq, quite simply, would be annihilated. Such a strategy might work, I suppose. But it might not. Mr Saddam has yet to show himself the most rational of leaders. And frankly, I am rather squeamish about the idea of killing millions of innocent Iraqis to punish their psychotic president. This returns us to the real world. Given Mr Clinton's ultimatum, it may take just a few days. We may have to wait longer. But we can be pretty sure that the choice between bombing and appeasement will soon enough re-present itself. We must hope in the meantime that Washington does more to fit Iraq into the wider context of the Middle East. But the arguments will not go away. And this crisis presents the international community with a more profound choice. The US can use its military might to contain the danger Mr Saddam represents to our collective security. Or it can update the Monroe Doctrine and retreat behind its nuclear shield. They would not be quite so smug in Paris if Washington were driven to the second course.