Yeah! It’s Bush’s fault that only 18 out of 21 European countries support us! This is some turnaround from that massive alliance of zero countries when Clinton bombed that Sudanese aspirin factory! 
And great allies they are! The COMBINED military budget of the Vilnius 10 is almost – but not quite – equal to the NYC police department.
Turkey, with 90+% of the population against this war, needed to be bribed with ungodly amounts of money to allow us simply to use its airbases.
In our remaining allies, i.e. Italy, Spain, England, the majority of the population doesnt support war and the VAST majority wants to continue allowing weapons inspectors to work.
The aspirin factory bombing, though very ill-advised, was hardly a war. A better comparison would be to look at who our allies were in more recent wars – Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Gulf War I. I would say that its a HUGE turnaround from that.
The bottom line is that if you are going to wage a “pre-emptive” war, you simply have to hit the PR very very very hard beforehand. Bush’s bumbling inadequacy at coalition-building did about as poor a job of that as possible.
A diplomat Bush aint.
I think he’s referring to Rumsfeld’s tendency to out and out insult the countries who won’t toe the Administration’s line. It’s the diplomacy he’s talking about, not any success record, per se. It could lead some people to conclude that they don’t care about the Security Council veto power, and this indicates that they’re going to attack Iraq, in surprise, without anyone’s go-ahead. If Bush wants to dispel that illusion, he might ask his subordinates to tone down the naked disgust towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them…
Of course not. But it is inconsistent to proclaim Germany’s right to make decisions on its own as a sovereign nation, then to criticize the US for doing the same (particularly when at least 20 countries have sided more or less with the US, not that that makes “unilateral” any more of a criticism than it was before).
And CyberPundit, my argument is in response to your statement that
, which was open-ended and did not contain any analogy to the “international system”. Now that you appear to have refined your beliefs, which clearly are not that a nation has the right to pursue its own policy with regards to war, we have a different issue. In any case, the Europeans’ major argument has been the charge of unilateralism when their own approval would keep that charge from applying.
Of course in the last paragraph “analogy” should actually be “reference”.
I take your point, Leaper. Usually diplomacy consists of speaking diplomatically, i.e., mealy-mouthed. However, there may be diplomatic situations where insults are useful. ISTM that Rumsfeld’s insults were quite deliberate, so somebody seems to have decided that this was such a situation. Bush’s success in building a coalition supports that decision.
Its not so much that the US is simply acting unilaterally, its that these countries disagree with this SPECIFIC instance, and that the US seems determined to act with or without approval.
To say that “Europeans’ major argument has been the charge of unilateralism when their own approval would keep that charge from applying” is like saying the world is round because it isnt not round.
By the way, GoHeels, the boys sure took a whuppin’ in Maryland today. A sad day indeed.
“In any case, the Europeans’ major argument has been the charge of unilateralism when their own approval would keep that charge from applying.”
Actually from what I gather many of the French and German objections are essentially pragmatic: that a war would cost more than it’s worth, lead to more terrorism etc… Since this was essentially the judgement of the US for more than 10 years and continues to be the judgement of many American foreign-policy types, it makes the current anti-French/German hysterics especially odd. Why not direct the same rage at Bush(41), Clinton and Bush(43) before 9-11? It may be argued that 9-11 changed everything it’s far from clear how it improves the case for an Iraq invasion.
What an abortion of a game. Games like that make me wonder why the hell I invest so much emotional energy into my beloved Tar Heels. 
Anyway, back to the topic,
No one has yet to explain to my satisfaction how inspections work for the long-term, unless it’s accompanied by a massive invasion force (made up mostly of non-Muslim American/UK troops) permanently stationed in the countries accompanying Iraq.
CyberPundit opined in another thread that inspections worked pretty well from 91-98 without a large invasion force in place, so history proves it can work. But Saddam also proved in 1998 that he could kick out the inspectors at his whim without serious consequences when he feels he isn’t under the imminent threat of invasion. Therefore, for inspections to work on the world’s terms, a massive invasion force must be in place, permanently.
My question is, if you admit that it takes a huge invasion force of mostly non-Muslim American/UK/Australian/etc. troops in these mostly Muslim countries (Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar) in order to enforce Saddam’s compliance with inspections, won’t the presence of these troops prove to be a destabilizing force over time?
Won’t OBL or other like-minded jerks use the permanent presence of these troops on Muslim soil as a rallying call to the disaffected masses, as OBL has done with Saudi Arabia? Is it not reasonable to expect that popular pressure in these countries for the infidel troops to leave will rise to intolerable levels over time?
ISTM that the way to really win this “war on terror” is not just by killing the bad guys, but by strengthening the hand of the liberal moderates in the region. Inspections accompanied by a massive invasion force may eventually work to keep Saddam in a box, but at what cost? The same dysfunctional political culture will exist in the region, Saddam will still be in place to abuse his people, we’re still in no position to force the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table, and the nutballs will still be there to recruit impressionable, frustrated young men to their cause.
Oh, the Israelis and Palestinians could be forced to negotiate.
This urban myth that the weapons inspectors were “kicked out” in 98 sure has entrenched itself pretty firmly. Major media sources repeat it as well. Go back to sources at the time and you wont find a single one saying they were kicked out.
regnad, why then did the inspectors leave?
The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
– Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
–John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and–as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning
–Katie Couric, NBC’s Today, 12/16/98/
As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.
–Maurice DuBois, NBC’s Saturday Today, 8/3/02
The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate–a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.
–AP, 12/16/98
Information on Iraq’s programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
–AP, 9/7/02
Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad’s noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
–Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.
–Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today’s evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq’s failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.
–Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
If he has secret weapons, he’s had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.
–Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
–Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
–John King, CNN, 8/18/02
Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
–USA Today, 12/17/98
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
–USA Today, 9/4/02
But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler’s quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.
–New York Times, 12/18/98
America’s goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons… To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.
–New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night–at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.
–Washington Post, 12/18/98
Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
–Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad’s continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq’s prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
– Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors’ work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That’s disingenuous.
–Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
Regnad,
I appreciate you providing the contrasting reports from 1998 and 2002 - how come the anti-war proponents haven’t played that up more, I wonder?
It still is apparent to me that Saddam feels he can and will thwart the inspections (either by not cooperating with inspectors or by expelling them) unless he feels his regime is facing an imminent threat (i.e. an invasion). In order for the threat to be credible and to enforce inspections, we still have to have a massive invasion force ready to invade, and said invasion force will be mostly American (read Western non-Muslim).
Also, does a permanent inspection regime also mean that sanctions have to continue (another reason for the peoples of the ME to hate us, not to mention another recruiting tool for al-Quada)? Sanctions seem pretty inhumane to me, as well as self-defeating.
I bet if the Israelis were forced to create a separate Palestinian state with defined borders, the Arab world would let the US do pretty much whatever it wanted to do in Iraq. Hussein has fans in the Arab world only by virtue of being the arch-enemy of the US.
As far as recruiting tools for al Qaeda, an invasion – especially without UN approval – would likely be the greatest recruiting windfall bin Laden could possibly hope for.
But lets not to conflate the two. Bin Laden and Hussein hate one another. Sure, bin Laden will milk any opportunity he has. However, if any elbow-rubbing is going on here, its because of the old “enemy of my enemy is my friend” bit – the same idiocy that fueled the US assistance to Iraq (vs. Iran) and pre-Taliban (vs. USSR).
GoHeels,
I outlined some reasons why containment can be workable without massive invasion forces outside Iraq in your other thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=163754
About sanctions my understanding is that the humanitarian effects have been greatly diminished by the UN oil-for-food policy. Certainly no one claims that they are killing Iraqis by the tens of thousands today. At the begining of the Bush administration IIRC Powell outlined proposals for “smart sanctions” which are presumably still workable.
The previous Gulf war killed maybe 80,000 civilians. When you consider that this war is a full invasion of Iraq with the possibility of street-fighting in Baghdad and scorched earth tactics by Saddam there is a serious possibility of much higher casualties. Not to mention the possibility of civil war when the central regime is destroyed. Think of how many innocents were killed in Yugoslavia. So I don’t think that from the pov. of Iraqis, a war is worth the risk.
So are you saying that we’re putting the cart before the horse - we should impose a two-state solution first and then invade Saddam (how will we impose this, BTW?)?
CyberPundit, I remember reading your views on how containment can work without a massive invasion force on my other thread, where you cited the success of the inspectors from 91-98 in destroying large numbers of weapons as historical proof that inspections can work (am I correct?).
However, I respectfully disagree with your assertion, because without the huge invasion force in 1998, Saddam (according to regnad’s interesting recalls of reports from 1998) at least felt safe enough to openly not cooperate with the UN inspectors. And the inspectors left, without much of a peep from the U.S or U.N., so Saddam’s calculation was proved right.
If it happened once it can happen again. And given Saddam’s penchant for stupid risk-taking, brinkmanship, and desire to become the next Saladin, I feel this scenario is not only possible, it’s probable. Are we going to have to go through this ad infinitum - we reduce our force, Saddam (or Qusay or Uday) feels safe to thwart inspections, we send back the invasion force to enforce inspections and piss off the world?
Naaah.
As I said earlier, this whole “piss off the world” thing could have been avoided if the US had a president with a diplomatic bone in his body.
I dont see what the problem is in creating a Palestinian state. Whats the big deal? If the US forced this issue, it would make a lot of friends in the Arab world and take the wind out if al Qaeda’s sails. If making American citizens safe from terrorism really is Bush’s main priority, I cant think of anything that would be more effective at achieving that end.
An unprovoked invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, will undoubtedly result in a huge increase in recruiting for al Qaeda.
Hussein aint gonna attack the US. With a Palestinian state, the terrorist threat would surely subside, bin Laden’s power would diminish – after that where is the danger?
Well first let’s note that inspectors did work for seven years before they were pulled out and destroyed a lot of weapons in that period. If the current esacalation can keep Saddam scared for that long a period it would probably have been worth it. Note also that there has never previously been such an explicit threat of invasion before. Saddam may decide not to fool around even after the troops are reduced because the US will likely not bother with inspections at all the next time around.
Finally we don't necessarily need to have permanent inspections. One proposal floating around the is the Carnegie Endowment coercive inspections proposal which will last for a year and be backed by soldiers on the ground. If inspections don't work in that period you can always have a war next year. I think the US will have a lot more international support a year from now if it is seen to have really tried the inspections route seriously. Also if the coercive inspections manage to destroy some of Iraq's weapons that will make a war less dangerous.Can’t argue with that - and it’s very disappointing to me.
Cyber - interesting point. I’d be in favor of at least exploring this proposal as a way to ameliorate the diplomatic mess we currently find ourselves in.
However, I would hope that if, in a year, Iraq has shown it hasn’t cooperated to some sort of rigorous objective standard, that France, Germany, and Russia guarantee their support of military action to take out Saddam (and not turn around and diplomatically stab the US in the back - sort of like they did to Powell).
Would that be fair?
“However, I would hope that if, in a year, Iraq has shown it hasn’t cooperated to some sort of rigorous objective standard, that France, Germany, and Russia guarantee their support of military action to take out Saddam…”
Sure that’s pretty reasonable. I think it’s pretty likely too. These countries may not be cheer-leading for the war even then but at worst their opposition will be much more muted and they won’t make any effort to block the US at the UN.