Posted on 08/11/2002 9:24:03 AM PDT by Dog Gone
I'm talking troops on the ground.
He knew something was coming , and he has nothing to lose.
-Edmund Burke
Recently I've been reading Henry Kissinger's latest book: "Does America Need A Foreign Policy?" Any guesses on Henry's answer? In the article posted above he makes some of the same observations that he makes in his book about the 1648 Treat of Westphalia:
"The new approach (talk about taking out Saddam's regime) is revolutionary. Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which, after the carnage of the religious wars, established the principle of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states."
Kissinger here is showing some nostalgia for the good old days of diplomacy (this tone is consistent with the tone he takes in his book...though later in the editorial he becomes down right hawkish). Conservatives are nostalgic and I am a conservative. I am nostalgic for the time when the nations of the earth agreed on treaties such as that of Westphalia. Diplomacy works best in a paradigm where the "players" play by "rules" that are generally observed by all of the "players." The Treaty of Westphalia has stood the test of time. Unfortunately times do change. There are individuals and countries who have shown by their actions that they do not believe that the principles of Westphalia work in their interest. They have taken an interest in our internal affairs, witness the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and an apparent attempt on the White House.
After September of last year, few would deny that there are new "players" on the field that don't intend to play by the rules agreed upon centuries ago by Europeans. People wonder how can this be? Have they not protected the interests of all? And here is the crux of the issue, there are some individuals who maintain a belief system that has no relationship to the interests of others, as is understood in a treaty of Westphalia context.
Even individuals amongst the most pro advocate interventionists are aware that involvement in Iraq will reap a whirlwind of wrath throughout the Middle East, but in a complicated equation of political calculus many (including Kissinger below) are starting to believe that the staggering economic, political and military cost that will have to be born by any serious effort to topple Saddam would be preferable than allowing the US to sustain another 9/11 attack.
Pre 9/11, there was talk about US military action against Osama bin Laden. Last weeks "Time" magazine published a marvelous apologetic for the Clinton Administration detailing a "plan to get bin Laden. It was said that this excellent plan was bequeathed to the Bush Administration. Little note is made in the article about the years Clinton dithered away, nor is there any linkage as to why Clinton dithered and the current criticism of Bushs pre 9/11 actions. The debate in Clintons administration was in many ways similar to the current debate about intervening in Iraq. Though I think the case for going after bin Laden should have been a lot more clear cut, in that it did not involve a regime change in a country.
If there is another 9/11 type attack there isnt a leader worthy of the name who would want to have to answer for failing to do everything it he power to prevent it. Or in the words of Burke, to have been a good man who did nothing. This is the quandary before the Bush administration. It is trying to read the tea leaves on a grand scale but I guess that is what they are getting paid the big bucks for.
Interestingly, l do believe that the chaos that the debate about the proposed intervention is causing in the Middle East is just the sort of thing that bin Laden hoped would transpire from an act like 9/11s. Americas relationship to many countries in the Middle East, can I believe be accurately described as strange. Bin Laden was not stupid. He recognized that he could leverage the weakness of these relationships. The institutes of government of every single Arab country are diametrically opposed to the principles up held in American democracy. They are kingdoms or totalitarian regimes. Sometimes they are both. We have respected the choice of the peoples of these lands to govern themselves in the way of there choosing (adhering to the principles of the Treaty of Westphalia (and our own)), i.e. we have not intervened in their internal affairs (at least not on the grand scale being contemplated with Iraq). Besides that, the only intervention that I believe would have wide support would involve the building of democratic institutions, but democracy can never be forced. It has to come from an internal desire to change. And little to none desire exists in Iraq for any institutes of government in Iraq that an American would recognize as democratic.
Though these regimes are largely totalitarian, many of them have endorsed the principle of free trade. This is another principle of American democracy. It is one of the principles that has made the U.S. the economic world power. Some have argued that trading with totalitarian regimes is hypocritical. Those that do this in my opinion miss understand the principle of free trade that the U.S. is built on. That is not to say that economic embargos dont have a place, but I believe that they should only be used very selectively.
Just as military actions should be used selectively. I think the current actions of the Bush administration are just what the situation calls for. Kissinger doesnt like ambiguity. He states: the time has come to define a comprehensive policy for America and for the rest of the world. I think the Middle East is one place where ambiguity can actually be a friend to peace. I think Clintons amateur amble through the quick sands of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process indicates quite clearly the explosive effects that comprehensive policy can have. There are so many issues in the Middle East that titter on the edge of a finely sharpened sword. Having a comprehensive policy which clearly favored either Israel or the Arab states would surely resolve a lot of ambiguity but would it bring peace?
That said, I agree with Kissinger that debating the policy more in the US public domain is a good thing. This debate will surely only add more ambiguity to any Iraqi observers. Iraq continues a hostile stance towards the U.S. It maintains that the US is the Great Satan. It is building weapons of mass destruction. It has used weapons of mass destruction against its own people, against fellow Muslims. What is to stop Saddam from using them against the Great Satan? Saddam is a tyrant and tyrants understand the rule of brute force. This lesson was taught to him in 1991, yet he sees his own survival as to some extent the result of US military impotency. 9/11 showed US impotency. The political calculus of the Middle East is so unpredictable that one could not discount a scenario where Saddam strikes at a US city with a weapon of mass destruction and then dares the US to do likewise to an Iraqi city of poor third world denizens, who are more political prisoners than supporters of his regime. And if the US did strike, would he shed more crocodile tears than he did when he gassed his own people?
The strong stance that Bush is taking, I think is intended to bring a flush of reality to Saddam. He has an address, bin Laden doesnt. If he pushes the button and the return mail address is Iraq. Iraq will become a complete waste land. This is the message I hope Saddam gets. Its a message I believe he will understand. I hope we dont have to go into Iraq. But I do think it is the right thing to maintain a posture which prepares for it in the hope that Saddam will soften his stance, allow back weapons inspectors (as it agreed to under the terms of its surrender) and start behaving like a semi civilized country. I think the chances are about 50/50, but I hope that it is the case that Iraq shows a modicum of reason and does not give into the tendency of to follow bin Ladens example of a moth to the flame
.because with out a doubt the US will have no choice but to provide a very, very hot fire. But providing the fire is what bin Laden and his ilk want. If we do, they win and the world loses. But by holding an aggressive military posture, Bush is doing something. He is forestalling the whirlwind and hoping the other guy will blink. Lets hope he does, I dont want bin Laden to win. If Saddam doesnt blink, then again I think Kissinger is right, the time for ambiguity will have passed and America will have to search its soul and see if its got the right stuff to embark on what will truly be a colossal endeavor.
And hindsight is a wondeful thing. We should have finished Hussein off during the Gulf War.
Kissinger clearly does wish for the good old days where conduct of nations either fit into established rules or clearly violated them. A pre-emptive strike by a country in self-defense looked entirely like aggression under the old scheme, but seems completely reasonable when a weapon of mass destruction can be delivered silently and without warning today.
Waiting and absorbing the first blow before striking back is not a viable strategy in many cases. Israel, for example, can't absorb such an attack, either as a first or retaliatory strike. It simply isn't large enough.
That has forced them to adopt the same approach to these matters as Kissinger is perhaps reluctantly adopting. Pre-emptive strikes against enemies before they have the ability to destroy us is a complete change to the old rules, but one that imminently makes sense, if only we can determine accurately which threats are real and which are illusory.
Kissinger ISN'T opposed to action in Iraq. Anyone can read this article and see for themselves.
It's just amazing to see this lie repeated over and over in the press.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.