----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Grimaldi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Our Friends at the UN
> Dan Minette wrote: > My issues of concern (which I've stated before) are: > > There are moral and political problems with forcing > a foreign soverign nation to enact a "regime change" > and install a government that does things as you want > them done. This is only acceptable when you have a > broad coalition of nations and the general world > opinion states that this has to happen. Lets look at what happened with the Gulf War. Hussein attacked Kuwait, the US lead a coalition (which was mainly there for moral support) to push Iraq out of Kuwait. The question, when the Iraq army was quickly routed, was do we go to Bagdad? There were a number of reasons for the answer being no. At the time, I thought Bush's Sr.'s judgement was sound. Hindsight is 20/20, but the problems with overturning Hussein presented in the Atlantic Monthly article I referenced existed then, and a reasonable person could very well believe that there was a good chance that his regiem would fall fairly quickly. But, part of that was a stringent "or else" regarding inspections. The UN would enforce manditory inspections. Well, it didn't happen. And, it seems that you, JDG, and I agree that Iraq is in material breach of the provisions that let Hussein stay in power. Further, the chief inspectors, from what I read, generally support the US resolution on the subject. What is interesting is that France and Russia object to language stating this fact. They seem to feel that this gives the US the right to enforce the agreement, even without their explicit approval. IMHO, there is a strong basis for such an agreement. The US agreed to stop the Gulf War, based on an agreement of what will be done. Does the desire of other countries to back out of that agreement invalidate it? Is the US really operating as a rouge if it feels that the agreement is still in place? Further, we have the unfortunate example of the Balkins. The US behaved as just one of many members of the international community, unwilling to force its will on the world, or even its allies. Lets look at what the Dutch review of the tragedy in Kosova has to say about this: From http://194.134.65.21/srebrenica/ we have Christopher's trip was typified by inexperience on the part of Clinton, who did not fully understand the extent to which the rest of the world waited for America to take the initiative.....Indeed, it had already been decided beforehand that Christopher would not be permitted to present America's preferred policy of lift and strike as a fait accompli in the European capitals.[13] It would probably have been possible for him to persuade the Western European leaders with a single utterance of power, but this would have made Bosnia America's problem and the Clinton administration definitely did not want this.....The American Government was prepared to make a contribution to a multilateral approach at most. As his briefs for discussion in London indicated, Christopher had come 'in a listening mode'. [15] This gave both the Europeans and the Americans the impression that the Washington administration sought support for a policy they did not wish to fight for.[16] Together with the fact that the European leaders still needed to get used to Christopher's soft-spoken attitude, the American approach merely sewed the seeds of confusion in the capitals of Europe, which were used to America dictating the way." It appears that the Dutch report indicates that the US should be faulted for not dictating terms to the world. My memory of the period was that it was a time where the US was trying not to be the world's policeman, but to just work with everyone else. That sounded real reasonable at the time. The Balkins were a problem that Europe had the capacity to handle. Unfortunately, as is detailed later in the report, the UN would not authorize action clearly needed to stop the massacre. I'm beginning to assign some of the blame I focued on the Dutch to the UN as a whole. But, I see this as evidence against your arguement that the US should wait for world consensus. When it did, many died as a result, and the US gets faulted for not forcing its opinion. > When you decide that you have to do this, you are > then saying that it is OK to do. Others will use > the same rhetoric and excuses that you did, but > toward their own ends. This exact thing is playing > out with the War Against Terrorism. Both Russia > and Israel are using GWB's words and actions for > their own purposes, even though we might not agree > that the situations are similar enough. This also > applies to assasinations. But, what is the alternative? Hasn't the UN shown that it cannot be trusted to protect anyone? > It also opens the door for other nations to do the > same types of things to you. Why? What's to stop them, otherwise? The only thing I can think of is the US military. > None of the requisite political planning or > maneuvering has been done. When GWB announced > that he wanted to take out Saddam, he didn't > get all his ducks in a row beforehand, unlike > his father, and has been behind the 8-ball > politically ever since. My understanding is that he has tried and failed for 6 months. Only after he threatened to go alone did anything move towards approval. > This will not be a short 30 day war if we plan > on "regime change" as a goal. There's no signs > of anything other than a vague idea of what to > do after the military portion of the war is over. That is a valid point, I think. > This apparent lack of planning will lead us > into another vietnam-style conflict, How? Who is going to fund and arm folks? There will be no untouchable nuclear power bankrolling the opposition. > > Finally, the administration said it has proof > that Saddam is preparing WMD's, but it has yet > to cough it up. All of the posturing that > Saddam has flaunted the U.N. resolutions does > not make proof. All that it warrants is the > corner that GWB has been backed into: that inspectors > have to go in now, with unfettered access, and > that there's the (implied or not) threat of > military action if Iraq fails to comply. Not > a regime change. GWB agreed that if the inspectors go in and Hussein complies, there will be no regime change. But, that's not likely to happen. Are you suggesting invading, taking over the country, destroying the WMD, and then handing power back to Hussein? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
