Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Bush > _used_ the sympathy 9/11 generated to make possible > something that would not have been possible without it > - the removal of Saddam Hussein, something that was > clearly not in the interest of anyone in the region or > in Europe (save England).
I completely agree with the above statement. What I have never been able to understand, though, is just whom this war *was* in interest of, other than the Iraqi people that is [and that too when and if the reconstruction is successful]. If any American or British interests were supposed to have been served by this war or if they have indeed been served by this war, I find myself unable to identify them and reconcile the same with the way this war has been conducted. > His ability to do that was > diplomatic skill of the highest order. I disagree here. Imho, the diplomatic skill exhibited by the Bush administration was pitiful. Since the fall of the USSR, the US has been the sole super-power in the world. It was a bare fact, everyone knew it. Post 9/11, you guys had more sympathy and support than you have ever enjoyed globally. Bush not only used it to oust Saddam, the way this war was conducted, he almost used all of it up. That is a failure of diplomacy, not a demonstration of diplomatic skill. The US didn't really need anybody's help and the administration was willing to go in alone if need be. Then where was the need to offend, threaten, insult and denigrate other countries and institutions? I honestly see no evidence of diplomatic skill. What I see is a wasteful squandering of good will and old alliances, for a dubious and uncertain end. Now I don't mind it in the least. I am not American and I am definitely not a supporter of the notion of Pax Americana. But I would have thought the Americans would mind, at least those who *do* believe in this idea. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
