George Bush: Master of the World

Great Debates
1

IANA military nor political expert, but have some thoughts and wonder what people think about this.

As it seems somewhat apparent that the Iraqi leadership is in questionable health and their hold over the military fragile, it is becoming increasingly likely that this war will be over with very little bloodshed.

If this happens, virtually all Mideast leaders will breathe a huge sigh of relief, and the positions of the “anti-U.S.” (France, Russia, etc) will be formidably weakened.

I have little doubt that the U.S. will find (or “find”) some WoMD, or their components. Even if they don’t find a batch of biological-tipped missiles ready for launch, some anthrax/Vx/you-name-it (even if it’s old and unstable) will be discovered. The Bush administration will then be able to trumpet this to the world as their rationale.

As far as post-war Iraq, the lack of civilian bloodshed will somewhat predispose most Iraqis to view the U.S. as their liberator. This will, initially at least, create an atmosphere of democracy-building, thus increasing at least short-term the goodwill towards the U.S.

Combining the above, the light in which foreign governments (especially those who either sided with us, or at least didn’t actively oppose our policies) becomes more friendly. Among the populace, the huge outpouring of anti-Americanism dwindles slowly.

With Iraq sort-of out of the way, Powell etc can focus on N. Korea, but this time will take a far more diplomatic (and better executed) route, and this threat will also be somewhat diminished.

At home, the ease of the war helps contribute to Bush’s popularity, and consumer confidence grows slowly, as does the economy. This is enough to ensure that he will be re-elected.

Gathering all these factors together, and I see a short-term future where George Bush becomes the Master of the World. So to speak.

Now to the debate. How likely is this scenario? Even if this comes to pass, does the U.S. increase its standing diplomatically across the globe? What other effects would happen?

Lastly - before the dems and left-wingers jump all over me/this post, I am NOT a fan of Bush at all. Nor his administration’s policies, domestically or abroad. I posit this here merely for debate.

2

What I see is the potential for the above to happen, and it all be pissed away under the incompetent guidance of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. These three seem to positively fear any sort of diplomatic goodwill.

3

I was thinking the same thing. This is a team with a proven track record for snatching public-relations defeat from the jaws of international-accord victory.

4

You saw how much winning Gulf War I helped George I get re elected.

5

GWB-Master of the World?

Probably will happen, but not for the reasons you give.
First of all, please be aware that most of the countries that do not support the war are not “anti-U.S.” but are “pro-international law and order”.
There is no disagreement about the thuggery of the Iraqi regime, or the need to disarm them.
There is, however, a deeply held feeling in most of the world that invasions and violations of national boundaries are far too serious to be left to the whim of an individual nation. That is the reason there was so much support for the original war with Iraq. Iraq had invaded another nation, and had to be stopped.
For the last 50 years, we have relied on the UN to provide a forum for deliberation, policing and as moral counter weight to aggressors.
This action is seen by many to be a deliberate flouting of the system of international law that we all hope will protect us.
Will the leaders of the middle east be relieved?
Only if they don’t annoy the Big Guy.
I think that the Anglo/US willingness to ignore the international community, and the apparent eagerness to use force to impose their own wishes would give pause to any nation that tries to forge it’s own path.
Please understand that I am not “anti-war-under-any-conditions”. I think that, just as we expect police officers etc. to be held to a higher legal and moral standard than the rest of the citizenry, the world’s only superpower should also be held to the same standards.

So, Master of the World? Yeah, but through fear and intimidation, not respect.

6

I believe this assumption is a bit premature. No one really expected much resistance outside of Baghdad proper.

Even mass surrender by troops in the South will not mean that this will end with little bloodshed. I doubt killing Saddam would stop the regime from fighting.

Nonetheless, I hope you are right…

I have no doubt, even if they have to bring it in themselves. Hopefully, the US will be able to provide compelling and irrefutable proof of Iraq’s WoMD program for the world to see. The alternative ain’t pretty.

I really hope that is true, but I have some doubts. Saddam has repressed the minorities in Iraq, and they will view this as liberation, no doubt. The majority in Iraq is likely unaware of how bad this man is, and has been brainwashed to believe that the US is out to conquer them. US words will do little to dissuade this impression. It will take time to build any trust, and I think the expectation of the Baghdad public welcoming US troops to be a little too optimistic.

Becoming Master of the World would seemingly do little to increase diplomacy, just hegemony. You can decide for yourself if that is a good thing.

7

Something that people forget is that we are not fighting Saddamistan. Hussein came into power through the Baath party. I think I would not be making too much a stretch to say that it is probably organized much like the Bolsheviks were under Stalin–lots of little territories carved out under Uncle Joe. If he goes down, those who are left will still be able to function.

8

Actually for the past 50+ years the UN has been nothing more than a forum for diplomats to blow hot air. During its whole existance the UN has not once averted a major conflict, and has allowed many to rage on. Not due to incompetence, just by design.

There have been 3 military interventions authorized by the UN, one in 1950(?) authorizing the Korean intervention. Passed only because the USSR was boycotting the UN. It wasn’t until 1991 when the UN passed another resolution authorizing military intervention, to get Iraq out of Kuwait, and next in 2001 authorizing the attack on Afghanistan. It can be argued that these last two were essentially instances when the US gave the UN a choice of “approve or get out of the way, either way we’re going in”. Not unlike what the US did this time.

In the meantime conflicts like Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, Congo, and more raged on while the UN either wrung its diplomatic hands and beat its diplomatic chest and did nothing. Or alternately turned its back on the conflict and pretended it was not there.

So no, the UN for the past 50 years has most definitely not been “a forum for deliberation, policing and as moral counter weight to aggressors.”

9

As did the US.

Why the sudden indignation?

10

Things look good right now. We will strategically control Iraq in a few days, IMO. Then, the city fighting. If the Iraqis fight in the cities there will be massive destruction whether we bomb or not. The firepower advantage is grossly in favor of the coalition, so the Iraqis who fight will all die and where they fight will be utterly destroyed. But, that is a choice they will have to make over the next few hours and days.

11

In the first place, where did you get the idea that this was “sudden indignation”? How do you know I haven’t been pissed off about this for a long time.

And as a follow up I direct you to the quote to which I was responding as it addressed that the supposed holiness of the UN, not the US.

12

And my point is that the record of the US is no better.

I thought you were suggesting that the UN was ineffective.

Pardon my interpretation.

13

No, no, your interpretation is right on the money. I do think the UN is ineffective, by design no less. Where you erred was in assuming that my criticism of the UN was in any way connected with the US role during the same conflicts. I never made that connection, but I will now.

The US role in those conflicts can be summed up thusly, the US got involved when it was in its national interests to do so. Those national interests can be defined in any number of ways, military, political, and so on. It’s kinda hard to find fault with that.

The poster I was replying to made the argument that “For the last 50 years, we have relied on the UN to provide a forum for deliberation, policing and as moral counter weight to aggressors.” In my response to him I pointed out that that is just simply not the case. And went on to explain my reasonsing.

Now, if I have been sufficiently obtruse and offuscating I will go and enjoy my weekend, away from tv and internet connections. No, not in a cave, just a boat.

14

I agree that the UN was a toothless debating society during the Cold War. As long as the Soviets held a veto, nothing could be done. Which was by design, since the Soviets wouldn’t have joined an international body that threatened their empire. The UN was deliberately created to be a toothless talking shop, since any organization that had teeth would be ignored by the countries that actually mattered.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the UN was revived. With the Russians now acting in concert with the rest of the global community, it was hoped that the UN could finally be what some had imagined it could be, a supranational body that helped to prevent wars. When the Russians permitted the UN to endorse the first Gulf War, people thought that perhaps the permanent members of the security council would finally act together to punish aggression.

But the events of the next 10 years proved that nothing of the sort would occur. Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnai, Kossovo, North Korea, and now Iraq. There was no collective will to impose a solution, in fact the main activity was for each country to blame the others for failure to act, or to claim that action could not be taken.

So the promise of the UN was never fulfulled during the life of the USSR, it had a brief shimmer in the early 90s, and now is once again dead. The US will never agree to a UN that hamstrings American power, and a UN that hamstrings US power will be ignored. And so we have the current war.