Thursday, April 08, 2004
Iraq and America's Election
As I've noted before, I think, and still think, that the Iraq war was the right thing to do. A gamble, admittedly, but justified within the context of Sept. 11th. America was the body largely responsible for maintaining the cage within which Saddam Hussein, a man who had invaded two countries and threatened a third, was contained. It was OUR troops in Saudi Arabia. It was our planes maintaining the no-fly zone. Maintaining the status quo of UN sanctions meant America would be paying the bill.
We'd already paid a huge price for that, as our presence in Saudi Arabia is what attracted the attentions of a Saudi bin Laden. Since we were already in the fire, it makes more sense, if we were in a gambling mood, to provide a solution to the problems that keep pulling us back into the middle eastern quagmire. Build a democracy at Islam's historic heart and count on common sense (who wouldn't want to be free, when the effects are so clear and obvious) to spread that example throughout the Islamic world.
My belief in that is not shaken by the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq. However, I am finding myself more inclined to vote for John Kerry in the next election.
I don't blame Bush for a fractious Iraq. Iraq was ruled by a much more iron-fisted version of Yugoslavia's admiral Tito. Iraq was a nation whose borders were drawn by France and Britain in the aftermath of an Ottoman loss in WWI. When you see borders with unusually straight lines, it's a sure sign they were drawn by people with little concept of ethnic and cultural affiliations of people who live in the region.
Saddam Hussein kept things together by killing anyone who crossed him, as the Kurds found out when he gassed them prior to the Gulf war, and as the Shiite's discovered in the aftermath of their failed uprising after the first Gulf war. His absence has unleashed pent up conflicts and confusion, and that would have happened whether or not the UN had been involved.
However, our ability to properly respond to this confusion is hampered our need to rely on a "coalition of the willing" and not a set of treaty-bound allies committed to contribute. We can't call upon NATO, because this isn't a UN-sanctioned action.
Of course, it may well have been impossible to convince the UN to take part. However, it is pretty clear that a) Bush is a globally divisive figure, and b) has zero international charisma (versus domestic charisma, as Bush resonates more with certain segments of the American electorate). In other words, our failure to convince the UN might be due to Bush. Even if the UN was a lost cause (not inconceivable, as the UN has historically had very little backbone - witness Srebrenica, or the failure of the UN to do much about Rwanda), we need a president who is VERY good at convincing allies to do what is necessary in the absence of treaty obligations.
John Howard's opponent (JH is prime minister of Australia) is saying he would pull out Australian troops if he wins. The Ukraine is getting nervous about keeping troops in Iraq. Spain already plans to pull its troops out. I imagine MOST nations are wondering whether or not they should stick around to help out in what they consider to be "America's war."
We need somebody who can convince allies to pitch in when necessary. Kerry doesn't have Clinton's way with words (Kerry was upstaged recently at a Democratic unity conference by Clinton, though probably less than Gore was at the Democratic convention four years ago), but he's multilingual, has a lot of experience living and working with Europeans, and is married to somebody who knows five languages, is of Portuguese descent and was born in Mozambique. Who you choose to marry says a lot about the kind of person you are, and Kerry screams internationalist.
We need an internationalist...or at least, that's what I'm thinking right now, and November is a LONG way off. It might have been useful to have a unilateralist in the aftermath of September 11th (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself). We need, in my opinion, an internationalist to make up for unilateralism's nasty side effects.
We need to rebuild the relationship with the rest of the world, and Bush quite simply will be unable to do that.
As I've noted before, I think, and still think, that the Iraq war was the right thing to do. A gamble, admittedly, but justified within the context of Sept. 11th. America was the body largely responsible for maintaining the cage within which Saddam Hussein, a man who had invaded two countries and threatened a third, was contained. It was OUR troops in Saudi Arabia. It was our planes maintaining the no-fly zone. Maintaining the status quo of UN sanctions meant America would be paying the bill.
We'd already paid a huge price for that, as our presence in Saudi Arabia is what attracted the attentions of a Saudi bin Laden. Since we were already in the fire, it makes more sense, if we were in a gambling mood, to provide a solution to the problems that keep pulling us back into the middle eastern quagmire. Build a democracy at Islam's historic heart and count on common sense (who wouldn't want to be free, when the effects are so clear and obvious) to spread that example throughout the Islamic world.
My belief in that is not shaken by the recent upsurge of violence in Iraq. However, I am finding myself more inclined to vote for John Kerry in the next election.
I don't blame Bush for a fractious Iraq. Iraq was ruled by a much more iron-fisted version of Yugoslavia's admiral Tito. Iraq was a nation whose borders were drawn by France and Britain in the aftermath of an Ottoman loss in WWI. When you see borders with unusually straight lines, it's a sure sign they were drawn by people with little concept of ethnic and cultural affiliations of people who live in the region.
Saddam Hussein kept things together by killing anyone who crossed him, as the Kurds found out when he gassed them prior to the Gulf war, and as the Shiite's discovered in the aftermath of their failed uprising after the first Gulf war. His absence has unleashed pent up conflicts and confusion, and that would have happened whether or not the UN had been involved.
However, our ability to properly respond to this confusion is hampered our need to rely on a "coalition of the willing" and not a set of treaty-bound allies committed to contribute. We can't call upon NATO, because this isn't a UN-sanctioned action.
Of course, it may well have been impossible to convince the UN to take part. However, it is pretty clear that a) Bush is a globally divisive figure, and b) has zero international charisma (versus domestic charisma, as Bush resonates more with certain segments of the American electorate). In other words, our failure to convince the UN might be due to Bush. Even if the UN was a lost cause (not inconceivable, as the UN has historically had very little backbone - witness Srebrenica, or the failure of the UN to do much about Rwanda), we need a president who is VERY good at convincing allies to do what is necessary in the absence of treaty obligations.
John Howard's opponent (JH is prime minister of Australia) is saying he would pull out Australian troops if he wins. The Ukraine is getting nervous about keeping troops in Iraq. Spain already plans to pull its troops out. I imagine MOST nations are wondering whether or not they should stick around to help out in what they consider to be "America's war."
We need somebody who can convince allies to pitch in when necessary. Kerry doesn't have Clinton's way with words (Kerry was upstaged recently at a Democratic unity conference by Clinton, though probably less than Gore was at the Democratic convention four years ago), but he's multilingual, has a lot of experience living and working with Europeans, and is married to somebody who knows five languages, is of Portuguese descent and was born in Mozambique. Who you choose to marry says a lot about the kind of person you are, and Kerry screams internationalist.
We need an internationalist...or at least, that's what I'm thinking right now, and November is a LONG way off. It might have been useful to have a unilateralist in the aftermath of September 11th (and I'm not entirely convinced of that myself). We need, in my opinion, an internationalist to make up for unilateralism's nasty side effects.
We need to rebuild the relationship with the rest of the world, and Bush quite simply will be unable to do that.
