The War So Far
The debate rages about Gulf War II and U.S. reasons for "going in" to Iraq.
I've tried to clarify my thoughts from time to time (for a while I was e-mailing David Olive of the Toronto Star). Here is the latest:
1. 9/11 enraged many Americans. It probably shifted Bush II from a "who cares?" attitude toward most of the world, to a determinaion that something must be done. The analogies to Pearl Harbour and World War II, as overdrawn as they often seemed, were a clue to how serious the Americans were. (An aside on the idea that anyone who wasn't totally with them was some kind of appeaser or coward: for two years after Chamberlain's appeasement, the U.S. did nothing while a Nazi empire spread in Europe, and a Japanese empire in the Pacific. The U.S. contribution was Lend Lease, for which the U.K. paid a pretty penny).
2. Taking out the Taliban in Afghanistan, while it was a perfectly logical response to 9/11, wasn't enough to satiate the U.S. rage. No U.S. delegation has proposed going on a triumphal tour of Afghanistan.
3. Iraq was an inviting target:
- Saddam had a long history of defying U.N. weapons inspections
- he ran a brutal and cruel regime, especially after '91
- his history was quite well known in the U.S. This included "unfinished business," the U.S. allowing him to remain in power in '91. There was some awareness the U.S. (Bush I) had made specific decisions that allowed Saddam to massacre tens of thousands of rebels. Americans didn't have to be taught from scratch to hate Saddam.
- (last, in my judgement) there was some real hope that taking out Saddam would make the world, not just Iraq, a better place. In any case his nastiness (forgetting the episodes in which he enjoyed U.S. support) would provide some moral cover.
4. Links between Iraq and al Queda were few or non-existent. (One indication: on 9/10, Saddam had everything his own way--no inspectors, and the sanctions didn't hurt him personally; by 9/12, he was doomed. To take any part in the planning for 9/11 would have been stupid in a way Saddam has really not been accused of). There was certainly more evidence of WMD's, but on this too there was a sense that the U.S. was exaggerating at least until Colin Powell lent his enormous credibility to the cause at the UN on Feb. 5.
5. Now Wolfowitz has said that the "best" rationale to use, for bureaucratic reasons, was removing WMD, as opposed to improving a wider strategic situation, or simply liberating Iraquis. Someone said on the web (I thought it was Kaus, but now I can't find it), that this means WMD was the rationale State and Defence could agree on. The old-fashioned conservative argument, national security, even if it was exaggerated or driven by rage, had more effect than a neo-con argument about saving the world, even if that means constantly being at war. This may be good news if the President himself is actually not that easy a person to persuade to go to war.
6. It's unlikely the U.S. will find no WMD's at all (even if you consider the two Winnebagos "nothing"), but it seems that at the time of the invasion, Iraq may have been one of the most poorly armed countries in the world. This always seemed like a positive to me. It wouldn't be like Vietnam, the U.S. would get the war over with fairly quickly. I'm no kind of military expert, so I couldn't have given details, but I thought the real weakness of Iraq (rather than its ephemeral strength) made it an attractive target. Who will shed tears at Saddam's demise?
7. For obvious reasons, Americans have difficulty talking turkey like this. Bush's defenders talk more and more about saving children from prison, ending atrocities, etc. Of all the children in the world suffering from war, land mines, torture, starvation as a military tactic, the lingering effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Bush II has no intention of liberating more than about a tenth of one percent. And that is perfectly sane on his part. His responsibility is to look out for Americans. But it also follows (as Wolfowitz was honest enough to say) the U.S. would never invade anywhere primarily or solely to liberate the suffering people who live there. I am not one who thinks U.S. motives in foreign policy are always worse than anyone else's; but there are times when they are no better. How could it be otherwise?
8. We should probably all read "The Quiet American." (I gather the movie is nastier to the Americans. Who directed--Costa Gavras, or someone like that, thinking the CIA is always the most evil organization around?) As one reviewer said (again, it was probably somebody on Slate): Graham Greene could be condescending to the naive American, but he also suggests that if there is going to be an imperial power, the Americans are probably the best choice--better than the tired, cynical Brits. (Or, God help us, the French or the Germans). Many Americans seem to have freed themselves from Vietnam syndrome. The neo-cons would apparently like to go back to the Cold War, as long as the U.S. is the only megapower, casualties are light, and there is little or no guilt or anxiety. It could be a wild ride.
|
