Has it come to this?

03.13.2003

I recognize that there are good reasons to not go to war in Iraq. Still. Try as I might, I can't understand the reluctance of Security Council members to support the American position on Iraq. After all, the council voted unanimously in favor of S.C. 1441. That resolution, like the seventeen previous, demanded Iraq disarm or face "serious consequences."

I readily agree that war should be the last recourse, after all diplomatic efforts have failed. But. At some point, that line is crossed. At some point, the last diplomatic recourse has failed and war — as Clausewitz argued — becomes the "realization of politics by other means." Each of the eighteen resolutions detailed exactly what steps Iraq needed to meet. No one — not even the French — argue that Hussein is not in material breech.

Twelve years of failed diplomacy. The world decries a lopsided embargo that only hurts Iraqi civilians and doesn't hinder the cause of their suffering — Hussein. Twelve years. And a resolution — unanimously passed — gives Iraq one last, final chance to comply.

At what point do you admit diplomatic failure? At what point do you accept that, yes, perhaps it has come to this: war.

The world is a dangerous place. Most of us woke to that reality on 11 September 2001. I won't pull on heart strings w/ more "remember 9/11" melodrama. No. I have no bloodlust for revenge. The lesson of 9/11 is simply that the world is dangerous, nothing more — and nothing less. But after 9/11 we sit up and notice when we hear North Korea is building The bomb. That Iran started up its nuclear program. We've opened our eyes from the great American dream and realized that, outside, there are dragons.

If the United Nations has any hope to work — to secure peace (rather than just talk peace) — the Security Council needs fangs. But if it only debates, if it only vacillates and agonizes, then wars will come. Lots of them. We've already seen the opening salvos of the post Cold War reality: Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Colombia, Somalia. The list will continue growing.

Iraq could be a turning point. The Security Council could enforce its mandates. Send a message to the Mugabes and Kim Jung Ils that their aggression will not be tolerated. Not any more.

But not if the debate becomes ridiculous.

At least one Security Council member announced he'd vote "no" on the current resolution because he opposes unilateral action. A child could unmask such stupidity (and let's call it what it is). If the Security Council approves the American proposal, then any war against Iraq would be multilateral by definition.

France announced it would veto the resolution "no matter what." Why not say "as the situation now stands" or something else, anything else. No matter what? No diplomat worth un centime denies himself an exit strategy. This is pure posturing — all headline and no substance.

And there you have it in a nutshell. Unable to be honest and admit that Iraq has not complied w/ calls for disarmament — which requires accepting that war is now at least a legitimate option — they prattle on w/ banal rhetoric opposing "unilateralism" (who doesn't?) and pointing out the obvious (does anyone believe war isn't the last resort?).

We shouldn't have to go to the United Nations, hat in hand, begging the Security Council to enforce its own demands, begging it to help ensure international security. No one should. In 1935, Haile Selassie begged the League of Nations for help against an aggressor state. Then, like now, France obstructed.

Fortunately, unlike Ethiopia, we are strong. We can fight. We can win.

In the end, by voting "no" they do vote for unilateralism. Because it's clear that Bush and Blair are willing to go to war alone, if necessary. And perhaps they also vote for the end of the United Nations. And if this is the end, I won't shed any tears.

Posted by Miguel at 09:59 AM

Comments

I completely agree, and I think many people have missed this. Yes, Diplomacy should always be the first course of action. This is what we have been trying for years, but it is time to take action. Diplomacy has failed. Very well said Miguel.

Posted by: Andres at March 14, 2003 08:13 AM

Comparing the Iraq situation to Ethiopia in 1935 misses an important point: Ethiopia was threatened. the USA are not threatened by Iraq.
"Begging" the Security Council is not begging for help in self defense this time. Where is the link to Al Qaeda's attacks? There it is:
Hussein paied money to palaestinian war victims killed in the struggle with Israel among which are also some families of suicide bombers. The suicide bombers have close connections to HAMAS or are its members and HAMAS has connections to Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda and Hussein are rivals for dominating the Arabic world with a very different political agenda. One is a military dictatorship, one is based on religious fundamentalism.
So the case of self defense in this case is: I hit you because you financially support someone who knows someone else(Hamas) who again knows someone who hit me in the past and probably wants to hit me again. Self defense?
(I am sorry, Miguel, that you read this before cos I posted it elsewhere but not on your weblog. Some of your readers probably have not read my view on this)

Unilateral action? France says it will veto no matter what. US say they will go to war no matter what. The stupidity not to have an exit strategy applies to both.

I have one question: Why is war neccessary now if the latest threats of war pushed Saddam into the right direction? He is disarming right now. Not because he wants to and not as fast as we want to and not as completely as we want to. But the fact remains that he is disarming.
So isn't it better(healthier) for US soldiers to let him disarm now and strike then when he stops complying, when he stops disarming? He will have less weapons than now meaning US troops will be in less danger then than now.

For any action that is proposed costs and benefits need to be checked. I am afraid, the costs of an Iraq war are underestimated.

Saddam armed every civilian with Kalashnikovs and heavier arms. read this from the Washington Post:
For those of you who can read German this article from today's newspaper might also be interesting:

For those of you who cannot read it, here is the main idea:
Every member of the Iraqi goverment party has been armed with a Kalashnikov and four rounds of ammunition. Nearly every Iraqi adult man is a party member. Will they use these weapons against invading US troops? In interviews the reporters found out asking very carefully that many people have a resentment against the regime and wouldn't want to fight for Hussein. However, they are eager to fight to defend their fatherland, their oil, their families.
Lets face it, it is a completely logical behavior.
In the US the same thing happened only 18 months ago. No matter what people thought of Mr. Bush, America united because of an outside attack. In every war fathers will die to protect their children.
The article continues that every house in Bagdad is full of gas(fuel). If the US order airstrikes because they are being shot at from every house the pictures of burning women and children will let any Iraqi forget Hussein and just fight for survival and filled with rage.
The article says that destroying telecommunication won't help a lot cos Saddam reorganised his troops into smaller independantly acting units who will communicate through the minarets of the mosques. Well, destroying the mosques will not really help to show to the people that America is liberating the country.

Instead the civilians will fight more fiercely. Hatred will spill over into other Arabic nations. Islamic terrorism will get a tremendous boost.

Maybe I am wrong abt this, if not hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iraqi civilians will die. The people the US is trying to liberate. A bunch of thousands of American soldiers will die and the whole region will erupt in terrorism or maybe (civil) war.
Are all the costs checked for military action? Isn't the current situation with a checked and contained Iraq better while being far away from perfect?

Posted by: Marco at March 16, 2003 06:00 AM

All those interviews w/ Iraqi who are dedicated to "fight to the death" for Hussein were done in front of media "minders" (Iraqi censorhip police). Iraqis are fleeing into Syria and Jordan to avoid the draft. As of Wednesday, Iraqi troops have started crossing int Kuwait (in small handfuls) asking to surrender. I honestly don't think there's much fighting to be done.

You're right, Iraq was cooperating because of US-British military pressure. The UK then proposed a clear deadline, which was unacceptable to the French. The French have even turned down other benchmarks or other ways to press Iraq into fuller compliance.

I'm starting to believe the rumors that France is hoping their involvment in Iraq's recent weapons development program doesn't come out. We'll see. At this point, France has killed the United Nations. I'll post more about that later as a regular post.

Posted by: Miguel at March 16, 2003 03:39 PM