One aspect of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that has been widely praised is the building of an international coalition in support of US actions. My position is that this is a good idea only if it does not involve too much compromise, and if the long term effects were more certain.
By compromise I am referring to the sudden equation of “Osama bin Laden = terrorist, everyone else = non-terrorist”. Suddenly Hizbulla, Hamas and other terrorist groups are no longer considered terrorists, and the countries and other political entities that sponsor them are our allies in the war against terrorism. (In what I would consider a most shameful incident, the US government has intervened in case pitting former hostages against the Iranian government - on the side of Iran!) It is worth noting in this regard that a while back Osama himself was a Freedom Fighter, because he opposed our enemy de jour. (In particular, it would appear that our new Afghan allies in the Northern Alliance are nothing but a bunch of thugs and drug dealers).
And the unpredictability. It would appear that despite our alliances with supposed “moderate” Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, that the only moderation (which is itself moderate only by comparison) is that of the leaders. The population is far less moderate. It would be worthwhile to note that the Shah of Iran was himself a relative moderate and a US ally. The countries that are “moderate” today could go the way of Iran tomorrow. To the extent that the US strengthens and allies with these countries today, it could be harmed should this occur. (I would venture that drawing these countries into coalitions of this sort will actually undermine their governments. Perhaps it might be more helpful if the US could pressure the Saudis to at least stop funding the al Qaeda movement).
So what is to do? I would imagine that some degree of logistical assistance might be needed for a campaign of this nature. But to the extent possible, the US should avoid this coalition building as much as possible, leave out the Syrias and Irans etc., and to the extent possible avoid getting entangled with countries whose political dynamic we don’t understand and whose future we cannot predict.
You do realize that, under an absolutely absurd US law, the United States government pays the damages awarded against Iran, Lybia, etc. in this and similar cases by victims of terrorism? Several of the Lebanese hostages have been paid hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars in earlier lawsuits.
A description of this is found in this excerpt from last week’s Economist:
Call me callow, but $10,000 a day in compensatory damages is absurd - even Alex Rodriguez doesn’t make that much. If US taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill, I am very glad that the Feds are getting involved to try to limit the amount of compensatory damages. Note, the US is not contesting Iran’s liability.
As for the rest of your post, you present legitimate concerns, but this question always exists - is it acceptable to ally with the lesser evil to combat the greater evil? Should we have created a coalition with Stalin to stop Hitler? I say yes.
It’s a good point, and I’d go back to the old admonishment that this country should “Avoid entangling alliances.”
Somebody important said that, once upon a time, I think.
Anyway, the key word there is entangling. Not that we should avoid all alliances, but it seems common sense to suggest that it’s not a good idea to get in bed with countries that are only prostituting themselves for arms or cash in the short term.
Of course, it’s something we have tried to avoid, and it seems as if it’s always come back to bite us on the arse. Easy for me to say.
But I think we are fast approaching the point with Afghanistan where our short-term interests are all that
matters.
Pretty soon, we’re going to need to accomplish something—-anything—-to convince ourselves that this struggle isn’t ultimately futile. That we can “win.”
That’s when you start getting in bed with the wrong folks.
So far, our government has made a serious and pretty sincere effort to prepare us and convince us that this is going to take a while. That’s all to the good.
Still, on the homefront, we’ve go antrax floating around. Doesn’t seem to be a whole lot we can do about it, and its happening more. That pushes us into the short-term focus even mor.
I dunno about you, but it sure would help raise my spirit a little to at least see bin Laden’s head on a spike here, pretty soon.
I agree about the amount (another call for tort reform). But I don’t think it is proper for the US to fight the interests of their own citizens - who suffered on behalf of the government, simply because they have agreed vountarily to pay the costs. Imagine of the US tried to fight insurance industry’s liability to the victims of the WTC bombing because the US was planning to bail out the industry. Now imagine that the insurance industry was not an American industry but a foreign country being held liable for deliberate actions designed to hurt US citizens.
Or imagine 15 years from now, enlisting the aid of Osama bin Laden to fight some other thug, and fighting to shield him from claims made against him by WTC victims.
This appears to be incorrect. From the linked article:
I agree. It can be acceptable if it is necessary. But it is not in itself a good thing, and should undertaken as cautiously and realistically as possible. A sober appraisal of the cost both in moral standing and practical reality must be made. It is frequently easy to realize in hindsight that it would have been better not to have helped/armed so-and-so, and it would be better to keep that in mind from the outset. It is my position that in this instance, the emotional response to this bombing is so great that such realistic appraisals are being tossed out the window in a single minded obsession with that Ultimate Bad Guy Osama.
Heh. Anyhoo, I get what you’re saying-what do we do?
It was the case in the cold war-many of the people we supported were worse than what we fought against-how do we solve this?
I disagree, to a limited extent. Imagine that you, as a wedding gift, have agreed to pay for a cousin’s wedding. I think it is in your rights to tell your cousin, “Honey, I am not going to pay for Birds-of-Paradise to be flown from Fiji the day of your wedding for your bouquet.”
I acknowledge that I misread the article. In a lawyer’s quibble, I point out that someone can move to have a case dismissed on grounds other than liability. I tried to look up the case and was unsuccesful, but one obvious possibility is the statute of limitations - the Iranian hostage drama ended over twenty years ago. This lawyer’s quibble does not endorse the moral aspect of the federal government fighting to throw out the case.
Forgive me if I’ve come to the wrong conclusion, Izzy, but, looking through the bushes, do I glimpse a debate about whether the current Alliance building is undermining Israel’s position apropos a Palestinian State ?
BTW, as I’m typing the BBC real time ticker is currently reporting this
“Sharon reportedly agrees to Palestinian State – more soon”
Fast moving times, I await more details of what he actually has said…
Straight on, I say. These are damn dangerous times for the world, and I’m not sure the spectacles are focused properly on the potential longterm consequences of alliances made in the heat of war. Many of our would-be allies have dirty hands in varying degrees due to support of terrorism.
The biggest problem I see is the potential for a worldwide conflict between Christianity and Islam. Yes, yes, I know we’re not fighting Islam, but what is Usama bin Laden saying? What are the muslim clerics in Pakistan and Iraq saying? I have serious concerns that this could turn into a conflagration based on what the people in the larger muslim countries believe to be the truth.
I think the OP hits on the major valid criticism of what’s going on here. What we don’t know is how many deals the Bush Administration has had to cut to get cooperation from some of these countries. Pakistan has already attached some conditions to their support. Arafat has just come out firmly in favor of the U.S. position, at great risk to his own life if the U.S. doesn’t end this war in some mutually satisfactory way. That leads me to believe that he has been offered something.
Saudi Arabia disturbs me the most.
Let’s have a look at our ‘staunch friends’ the Saudis. Who are they?
[list]
[li]The major exporter of Wahabbism, the Taliban faith[/li][li]One of only three states to officially recognize the Taliban[/li][li]They funded the Pakistani camps that helped train the Taliban[/li][li]They have in the past been funneling money to Bin Laden through the Royal Family[/li][li]They are the only country to refuse to freeze Bin Laden’s assets[/li][li]They have an abysmal human rights record[/li][li]The Royal Family is really an oligarchy, with hundreds of ‘princes’ that run almost the entire government and most businesses.[/li][li]It is a wealthy country (per capita income: $11,000), but one of the most militant Islamic countries in the area, giving lie to the claim that militancy arises from poverty.[/li]
[/quote]
This is not the same Saudi Arabia that we knew from the Gulf War. The King died in 1995, and his son assumed the throne, and since then the country has gotten a lot more repressive.
I’m worried that when all this is over the U.S. is going to find itself having made commitments to all sorts of countries which cripple its ability to deal effectively in the Middle East, and which it may have to eventually renege on, leading to even more anger and dissatisfaction there.
But we’re not privy to exactly what’s going on behind the scenes, so perhaps the Bush Administration is aware of these issues and taking steps. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since they’ve done so many other things right, but it worries me.
I agree with the premise of this OP that the U.S. must be very careful to avoid “too much compromise”. Many of the countries with whom we are forging new alliances have drastically different cultures than that of the U.S. While the respect and accomodation of different cultures is commendable, I believe the U.S. must be very careful not to compromise fundamental values. We must never support the abuse of human rights, the use of terrorism, or foreign acts of agression against sovereign states. It would also be helpful if the U.S. could adopt a more balanced position regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The tremendously pro-Israeli support on the part of the U.S. government has, understandably, caused a great deal of resentment among the Arab nations.
It’s an incredibly fine tightrope that the U.S. has to walk here. For example, we need Pakistan, but Pakistan’s support is destabilizing that government. If we’re not careful, the government could fall, and then you have a nation of 170 million people with nuclear weapons, with fanatics in power.
And, India is rightfully concerned, because they see Pakistan as waging terrorism in Kashmir. So U.S. support of Pakistan destabilizes its relationship with India.
And the U.S. has to get across that it is not anti-Arab or anti-Islam, and that rightfully worries Israel, which worries that it will be the focus of any compromises that the U.S. has to make to keep the Muslim world in check.
Then there’s Iraq, and Syria, and Sudan, and Yemen, and Libya, and Saudi Arabia, all of which have horrible human rights records and records of supporting and/or engaging in terrorism. And yet, they could come out of this whole thing with even more power and credibility, because we are playing them up now.
But what alternatives are there? Without Pakistan, the war gets an order magnitude tougher. Without making overtures to the Muslim world, you run the risk of Pakistan falling, and of increased hostility in other countries.
In some ways, this is really a no-win situation for the U.S., I think. This ‘war’ is not going to end with everyone getting along forever more.
I think a better analogy is if your grandparents are going to pay for it, and you decide that you will reimburse the grandparents. So that you now decide to persuade the grandparents to not pay for it so that you don’t have to reimburse them. Also, again, in this case it is worse because the Iranians were criminals and enemies etc.
I agree. I recall having seen in an article that the issue has to do with whether some law supercedes some other law or not (I was unable to relocate the article). But as you say, “This lawyer’s quibble does not endorse the moral aspect of the federal government fighting to throw out the case.”, so I think we are in agreement.
No. You may speculate as you wish about my underlying motivation. I agree that the coalition building is indeed undermining Israel’s position with regards to the Palestinians, and that I am not pleased by that fact. But I also think my position in this matter correlates with my general thinking about foreign affairs even when unrelated to Israel, as I’ve expressed in other threads on this MB. So who knows?
But what is more to the point is that I’ve not asked that anyone accept my position in this or any issue based on the fact that IzzyR has said so. I have presented certain issues for discussion, and they may rise and fall on their own merit. It would seem that one might concentrate on these, and ignore whatever underlying motivations IzzyR may or may not have. Deal?