|
Yes,
George W. Bush is following the tried-and-true formula
for a standing President: nothing like a little war
to garner popular support. He may be a bit premature,
it is yet 2 years until the election. I will admit
that I voted for him (would you have voted for Sore/Loserman?)
Nonetheless, he is off the mark here. While it is
true that Hussein does have chemical weapons, and
some form of biological weapons, even some level of
nuclear weapons knowledge, the imperative to attack
is anything but clear.
As
Davy Carlin pointed out,
we viewed Hussein as a friend in the 1980's when he
gassed the Kurds and fought the Iranians. Both the
US and the USSR freely sold weaponry to both Iraq
and Iran - clearly a violation of the UN Charter,
as Iraq was fighting a war of territorial conquest.
Again, we saw the same with the mujahideen in Afghanistan
- they were our friends while fighting the Soviets,
but when the USSR left Afghanistan in 1989, the mujahideen,
now calling themselves the Taliban, became our sworn
enemy, as they no longer served as our proxy warriors
against the Soviets, and were repressing their people(no
longer to our advantage. In fact, it was rumored that
different administrations brain-stormed ways to go
to Afghanistan and retrieve the Stinger missile we
had given them when they were our friends
Now
Bush finds himself in an uncomfortable position -
having declared the "need" and US intent
to topple Hussein, he has been stung by the unity
of voices in dissent (with the exception of our British
lackeys). Bush is in a quandary, he wants so badly
to hit Hussein hard and long, but from where? The
Saudis (whom Davy Carlin rightly states are quite
possibly more repressive than Iraq), have denied us
basing rights; the Turks are ambivalent, if memory
serves; I believe the Kuwaitis, Bahrainis, Qatarese(?),
and other Gulf States are cool to the idea. Israel
would allow us (they can refuse us nothing, especially
our $10 billion+/year), but that would mean overlying
Jordan, not a chance there. NATO (again with the obvious
exception) is decidedly against unilateral action.
Then
there is the UN - Bush is hoping for a Security Council
resolution, but there are stumbling blocks there.
France, Russia and Red China, all with veto power,
may do so. The ten non-permanent members also are
not guaranteed to vote with the US. So Bush addresses
the General Assembly, and gets a more receptive response
than might have been thought, but still hardly overwhelming.
In
the end, Bush's war of conquest will probably go forward,
but to what effect? Can he unseat Hussein? That is
by no means assured. Will he irreparably damaged US
standing in the region? Almost certainly. His wielding
of the 'big stick' will portray America as a rank
imperialist intent only on preserving the power balance
and continuing the flow of oil. No doubt we will see
many more terrorist actions in response to Bush's
war.
America
is at a crossroads - what a shame we do not have a
more visionary leader to guide us.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
