HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
> http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0414-04.htm > Monday, April 15, 2002 > > > Featured Views > > > Share This Article With Your > Friends > > > Published on Sunday, April 14, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times > > Iraq War: The Coming Disaster > > by Immanuel Wallerstein > > NEW HAVEN -- George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He > has > allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on > invading Iraq > from which he cannot extract himself, one which will have > nothing but > negative consequences for the United States--and the rest of > the world. He > will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And > he will rapidly > diminish the already declining power of the United States in > the world. A > war against Iraq will destroy many lives immediately, both > Iraqi and > American, because it seems clear that high-altitude, > surgical-strike air > attacks will not suffice in military terms. Invading Iraq will > lead to a degree > of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world hitherto unimagined. > Other Arab > leaders don't like Saddam Hussein one bit, but their > populations won't > stand for what they will inevitably feel is an unprovoked > attack on an Arab > state, leaving leaders with little choice but to be swept > along in the turmoil > or drown. And an attack on Iraq might ultimately spark the use > of nuclear > weapons, which, if unleashed now, will be hard to again make > illegitimate. > Iraq may not have such weapons yet, but we can't be sure. Even > if it > doesn't, might it not attack Israel with conventional missiles > that would > prompt Israel to respond with the nuclear weapons we know it > has? For that > matter, are we really sure that, if the fighting gets tough, > the U.S. is not > ready to use tactical nuclear weapons? > > How have we gotten into such a disastrous cul-de-sac? > > It seems probable that U.S. military action against Iraq is > now not a > question of whether but of when. The U.S. government insists > action is > necessary because Iraq has been defying United Nations > resolutions and > represents an imminent danger to the world in general, and to > the U.S. in > particular. This explanation of the expected military action > is so thin that it > cannot be taken seriously. Defying U.N. resolutions or other > international > enjoinders has been commonplace for the last 50 years. I need > hardly > remind anyone that the U.S. refused to defer to a 1986 World > Court > decision condemning U.S. actions in Nicaragua. And President > Bush has > made it amply clear that he will not honor any treaty should > he think it > dangerous to U.S. interests. Israel has, of course, been > defying U.N. > resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I > write this > commentary. And the record of other U.N. members is not much > better. So > Hussein has been defying quite explicit U.N. resolutions. What > else is > new? > > Is Hussein an imminent threat to anyone? In August 1990, Iraq > invaded > Kuwait. That action, at least, did pose an imminent threat. > The U.S. > response was the Persian Gulf War, in which we pushed the > Iraqis out of > Kuwait and then decided to stop there--for good military and > political > reasons. But that left Hussein in power. > > The U.N. passed various resolutions requiring Iraq to abandon > nuclear, > chemical and bacteriological weapons and mandated inspection > teams to > verify that it had done so. The U.N. also put in place a > variety of > embargoes against Iraq. As we know, over the decade since > then, the > system of constraints on Iraq put in place by these U.N. > resolutions has > weakened considerably, but not totally by any means. > > Several weeks ago, Iraq and Kuwait signed an agreement in > which Iraq > agreed to respect the sovereignty of Kuwait. The foreign > minister of > Kuwait, Sheik Sabah al Ahmed al Jabbar al Sabah said his > country is now > "100% satisfied," adding that he had written the agreement > himself. A > spokesperson for the United States nonetheless exhibited > skepticism. The > U.S. is not about to be deterred simply because Kuwait is > "satisfied." What > is Kuwait, that it should participate in such a decision? > > U.S. hawks believe that only the use of force--very > significant force--will > restore our unquestioned hegemony in the world. It is no doubt > true that > the use of overwhelming force can establish hegemony, as > happened with > the United States in 1945. But U.S. hegemony is not what it > once was. The > country's economic superiority in the world between 1945 and > 1965 has > been replaced with a situation in which the U.S. economic > position is not > significantly better than that of the European Union or Japan. > This relative > economic decline has cost the U.S. the unquestioned political > deference of > its close allies. All that is left is military superiority. > And, as Machiavelli > taught us all centuries ago, force is not enough: If that's > all you have, then > its use is a sign of weakness rather than of strength and > weakens the user. > > It is clear that, at this point, almost no one supports a U.S. > invasion of Iraq: > not a single Arab state, not Turkey or Iran or Pakistan, not > Russia or the > great bulk of Europe. There are, to be sure, two notable > exceptions: Israel, > which is cheering Bush on, and Great Britain--or rather its > prime minister, > Tony Blair, who declared last weekend in Texas that "doing > nothing ... is > not an option" with regard to Iraq. Yet an article in The > Observer last > month reported that "Britain's military leaders issued a stark > warning to > Tony Blair last night that any war against Iraq is doomed to > fail and would > lead to the loss of lives for little political gain." > > I cannot believe that U.S. military leaders have drawn a > different > conclusion, although they may be more wary of stating that > unpleasant > truth to President Bush. Kenneth M. Pollack, formerly of the > CIA and the > Iraq specialist on Clinton's National Security Council, says > military action > in Iraq would require sending in 200,000 to 300,000 U.S. > troops, > presumably from bases in either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, as > well as > additional troops to defend the Kurds in northern Iraq. > > The U.S. seems to be counting on intimidating its allies into > going along. > But after Israel's occupation of West Bank cities, the remote > hope that > Saudi (or even Kuwaiti) bases would be made available to U.S. > troops has > almost surely disappeared. Turkey clearly has no interest in > defending Iraqi > Kurds, since such action would certainly strengthen the > Kurdish movement > in Turkey, against which the Turkish government fights with > all its energy. > As for Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--with Bush's strong > > support--is in the process of destroying as rapidly as > possible the > Palestinian Authority, which certainly won't help Bush build > his anti-Iraq > coalition. > > Still, there will be an invasion, which will be difficult if > not impossible to > win. The action could well become another Vietnam. Just as in > Vietnam, > the war will drag on and will cost many U.S. lives. And the > political effects > will be so negative for the U.S. that eventually Bush (or his > successor) will > pull out. A renewed and amplified Vietnam syndrome will be the > result at > home. > > Can no one in the Bush administration see this? A few, no > doubt, but they > are being ignored, because Bush is in a self-imposed dilemma. > If he goes > ahead with the Iraq invasion, he risks bringing himself down, > like Lyndon > Johnson. And a U.S. failure would finally give the Europeans > the courage > to be European and not Atlantic. But those negative > consequences to Bush > would be in the future, whereas the negatives of not invading > are > immediate. > > Bush promised the U.S. people a "war on terrorism" that "we > will certainly > win." So far, all he's produced is the downfall of the weak > and > impoverished Taliban. He hasn't captured Bin Laden. Pakistan > is shaky. > Saudi Arabia is pulling away. If he doesn't invade Iraq, he > will look foolish > where it matters to him most--in the eyes of American voters. > And he is > being told this, in no uncertain terms, by his advisors on > internal U.S. > politics. Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his > being a "war > president." The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he > will be in > grave trouble--all the more so because of failed wartime > promises. > > So, Bush has no choice. He will invade Iraq. He has made clear > that the > current Middle East crisis will not deter him from this. Quite > the opposite. > Sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region is a way > of trying to > ensure the operation. And we shall all live with the > consequences. > > Immanuel Wallerstein is senior research scholar at Yale > University and the > author of "The End of the World as We Know It." > > Copyright 2002 Los Angeles Times > > ### > Share This Article With Your > Friends > > > > FAIR USE NOTICE > > > This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not > always been specifically authorized by the copyright > owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to > advance understanding of environmental, political, human > rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice > issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such > copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US > Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section > 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to > those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the > included information for research and educational purposes. For > more information go to: > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use > copyrighted material from this site for purposes of > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission > from the copyright owner. > > > > Common Dreams NewsCenter > A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the > progressive community. > Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up > > � Copyrighted 1997-2001 www.commondreams.org A > 'Cookie-Free' Website > > > --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
