Allies Give Little Support on Iraq By Sally Buzbee Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) — Allies who strongly support the war on terror are squirming as the Bush administration debates whether Iraq should be the next target. Russia, the Europeans and Arabs — even NATO — all have made clear they won't necessarily support military attacks on Iraq. America must identify ``real dangers rather than imaginary,'' Russia's prime minister said Monday after meeting with President Bush. And Germany's deputy foreign minister, noting ``the United States has old scores to settle with Iraq,'' warned, ``This terror argument can't be used to legitimize old enmities.'' U.S. officials have, in turn, made clear they would be willing to act alone. Iraq, one of three nations along with Iran and North Korea that Bush termed ``an axis of evil,'' poses such a dangerous threat that pre-emptive action might be needed, they say. ``Absent the world, someone, pointing out the danger they pose to their own people and their neighbors, they would run free,'' Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of Iraq in an interview on PBS' ``NewsHour'' Monday. ``They would invade Kuwait again, to be sure. They'd invade Saudi Arabia, maybe.'' At the same time, a senior Pentagon official known for his strong advocacy of attacking Iraq made clear to European allies that Bush hasn't decided what to do. The president spoke as he did ``to begin the kind of debate'' that allies have raised, said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. ``What the president did was to identify a problem,'' Wolfowitz said. He added: ``We are a long way from decisions about what to do.'' Bush's strong words essentially sent a message to Russia and Europe: "Join us now in ratcheting up the pressure on these regimes, or watch later as we act unilaterally,'' said Antony Blinken, a specialist on U.S.-European relations. For the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq bombed Iraqi air defense systems on Monday in response to anti-aircraft fire. Allied planes over northern Iraq have repeatedly been fired on since Sept. 11 but had not responded with bombing until now. Iraq has barred U.N. weapons inspectors for more than three years, and is believed to be trying to rebuild its banned weapons programs. Iraq's vice president reasserted, in an interview in a Russian newspaper Monday, that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on America. The Iraqi vice president also criticized Russia for trying to persuade Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to return. Turkey, a launching pad for strikes against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, also in recent days has stepped up its warnings to Iraq to allow in inspectors. Such pressure from Turkey and Russia is a clear goal of the United States. Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said last week that America would use its ``new and budding relationship with Russia,'' to put pressure on Iraq, Iran and North Korea and deny them weapons technology. Over the weekend, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov acknowledged that Iraq, Iran and North Korea might pose a threat to efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But Ivanov said he had ``no data or information that would suggest the governments of those three countries support terrorism.'' Russia and Iraq have strong trade ties, and Russian officials worry that attacks would jeopardize Iraq's repayment of a $7 billion debt. Turkey worries that if the United States attacked Iraq and the Baghdad government fell, Kurds in northern Iraq might create a Kurdish state, emboldening Kurds in Turkey. Arab allies worry attacks on Iraq would inflame anti-American sentiment in their countries. Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief suggested Sunday that his country might not support U.S. military attacks against Iraq, even if leader Saddam Hussein were found to be developing a nuclear weapon. Even NATO would not automatically support U.S. efforts to expand the war on terror to Iraq, Iran or North Korea, Secretary-General Lord Robertson said last week. And Germany's deputy foreign minister, Ludger Volmer, said flatly Monday: ``There is no indication, no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism we have been talking about for the last few months.'' The United States insists it can go it alone, if necessary. Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell both say Bush would consider using any aspect of U.S. power — political, diplomatic, economic or military — against countries that support terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction. But Robertson said the U.S.-led fight in Afghanistan, strongly supported worldwide, has shown that no modern military operation can be undertaken by a single country. ``Even superpowers need allies and coalitions to provide bases, fuel, airspace and forces,'' he said. http://wire.ap.org/?FRONTID=NATIONAL&SLUG=EXPANDING-THE-WAR Haven should love this one… We can do it alone, if need be. But this article is a bit misleading – we are not totally alone in the event that we “go at Saddam”. Kuwait and Bahrain are on board (we have a beach head and 2 large airfields there), Turkey is now supporting our position (immensely important), Jordan is fully supporting us as well (also immensely important)… And we always have the carriers and the Marines. And the 82nd. We’ve already quietly moved enough troops and armor/equipment over to Kuwait to do the job, and more is on the way. We can do this easily, even if the Euros aren’t on board. And quite frankly, NATO does not concern itself with ME issues. Except for Turkey… If they want to jump off the boat when the ride gets bumpy, fine. Let’s see how fast they swim back towards the boat when Iraq is free, the mullahs in Iran are sweating (because they are about to be overthrown by their own people), and calm waters are approaching… But whatever. The decision has already been made – Iraq is getting a new government, unless Saddam suddenly has a severe attitude change. The Euros can reap the rewards with us when it’s all said and done. We won’t hold their (short-term economically-motivated) whining against them. It won’t be the first time we’ve had to act while they spout moralistic multilateralist pipe dream BS. We will get the job done, and everyone except for Saddam and the Baathists will be better off for it in the end.
To be honest, I think we've had this one out, and are just going to have to chalk up our disagreements on the issue to irreparable differences . I look forward to the day when domestic political issues are a larger concern. It would be interesting to actually argue on the same side. Might be kind of freaky Whatever happens, I hope that America doesn't look like the aggressor and that Bush handles the situation with sophistication. I really don't want us to look like the aggressor. It's one thing to defend one's interests, quite another to violate another nation's sovereignty on a chance that one's national interest might be someday endangered by said nation. Such actions set dangerous precedents. Fairly reeks of pre-emptive hegemony. Also doesn't bode well for future US-EU relations...
The wierd thing is that on most issues, we're on the same side. As long as it's a domestic issue like tax cuts... Of course, there are exceptions. I don't want us to seem like the agressors to the rest of the world either; that's just not a disqualifying factor to me. If we have to go it alone, then we should go it alone in my mind. Our interests come first, not the EU's. And putting a democracy in Iraq is in the EU's long-term interests as well anyway. The only group it really hurts is the China bloc, and I am certainly not putting their interests in even my top 10 of "other peoples' interests to worry about"... The EU will make more $ with a free Iraq (which is what they really care about). Even Russia will, despite its currently lucrative (and illegal) resupply of military hardware to Iraq... A fee Iraq will lower global energy prices drastically. France will be able to build them a nuclear reactor. Russia will still be able to supply them militarily (even more so when the sanctions are lifted). Britian will be able to actually resume meaningful trade, political, and military ties with both Iraq and Jordan. The Saudis can safely kick us out. Kuwait gains a defensive buffer against Iran, thereby increasing sucurity of the Western Gulf from invasion... There are just too many reasons to do it, and not enough not to do it. The Euros will thank us later, along with the rest of the world.
Our primary interests, of course, do. We differ on what constitutes fundamental interests... and what is preferable, but not essential.
Actually, I've got to disagree with that on one point: I think that our fundamental interests are the same with regards to the ME - mainly energy prices. If they go up for us as a result of a loss of supply, then they go up for the Euros, too. And the EU is just as dependent upon lower energy pricing as we are. The Euros' stake has more to do with their stake in the PNA, and their indirect relationship with the Arab League. That is the root of this particular disagreement, although there are several levels to it. I would term those details as 'non-essential'. The fundamental reliance is shared. As far as what is preferable... We all have the same vision as far as that goes. We just don't see eye-to-eye on how to get there. The Euros want to supply Iraq militarily, they want to finance the buys (and bank on the interest), etc. We want to remove sanctions and supply Iraq ourselves... And the Euro energy interests will be hurt if we free Iraq and flood the market with cheap oil (Oh, what a horrible thing!). Despite the PR beating the US is taking for the sanctions, much of the real impetus behind them lies within the EU business community. If Iraq is freed, then there will be more competition for Iraq's markets. Right now, busting the sanctions is a fairly lucrative market for those who are willing to chance it, and the competitive equation is altered with respect to those markets, so the legit entities don't really take a hit because of the busting. The same entities who are asking for sanctions to be relaxed are telling us that they don't want to see Iraq free... They are banking right now. Well, I say to hell with them. I am not going to sacrifice US national security - or US capitalist interests - in order to make black marketeers and Euro sanction busters rich... Oh, and did I mention that Iraq is developing WMD to use against us?
Aren't we already seen as 'aggressors' in a lot of the world? Isn't that what a lot of the anti-American backlash is about? I say if we're taking the rap we might as well do the deed. Suprisingly (I never thought I say this) but I think that the current path Bush (or his foreign policy handlers) is taking is a pretty good one: If you want multilateralism instead of unilateralism, then ACT. If you won't act then get the hell out of the way and don't be suprised when we ACT unilaterally. That's a pretty damn reasonable and benevolent approach for the world's lone Superpower.
HayesStreet: Uuuhhh... You're disrupting our conversation on global/ME energy economics!!! (Just kidding) "Join us now in ratcheting up the pressure on these regimes, or watch later as we act unilaterally,'' This said what you said in a nutshell. I agree 100%. We will act where it suits our interests. Just like every other nation on the planet. Why does this shock so many people? I can understand this angering anyone outside of the US - it seems like Big Bad Billy with a Club. But why does this anger Americans? How the hell are we supposed to act?
treeman: I believe we also agree on the best means to avoid the problem altogether? By that, I mean that the U.S. should develop renewables (the most feasible of which, would seem to be a solar pvc/hydrogen storage combo). Incidentally, here's a pretty good "major media" article on the situation. It's more summary than anything else, but they agree with me about Korea, at least . http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020211-198894-2,00.html Eh, I think we're regarded as the agressors by those in diametic opposition to us. Most others probably wouldn't state it that starkly. I think it would be fair to summarize the European position by a cliche answer that many Europeans use: "the situation is complex." A Frenchman doesn't like American hegemony and unilateral invasionf of Iraq. But he also is closer ideologically and culturally to the US. And he was probably pretty damned outraged when the WTC was attacked. The international stiuation does matter, imo. If we manage to develop a coalition, everything will be cheaper, and our cause will appear more legitimate, thus provoking less outrage across the world. The US is going to experience a comparative decline for the rest of history, in all likeliehood. I think it's a good idea to make friends now, when we're strong. We should use our strength to dictate the agenda... but open up a legitimate forum for debate on individual issues and actions. Enough of my internationalist polemic .
Alternate energy sources, yes, we're certainly agreed on that. But stupid me, I like the coal option (several thousand years' worth in Alaska alone, and it can be made clean)... I'm also big on nuclear reactors, and that doesn't jibe well with the straight enviro leftist approach... But hey, hybrid cars and windbikes wherever possible. Windpower! But your 'international polemic' (coalition) will never happen. Even if we bend over backwards, it will never happen. Nation-states just do not agree like that unless they all realize the threat. That hasn't happened since 1991. Before that, the last time it happened was in 1941. It just almost never happens that way... We will have to go it alone. And I think you'll find that the recent "Peace through Strength" line is appropriate, considering that no other approach could possibly work with our current enemies. (do you think anything else will scare the NKs into action?)
I would love to see Saddam gone, but I also feel that President Bush will try to keep this war going on for as long as he can. It's the only way he can keep his popularity poll numbers artificially inflated.
"Artificially" inflated? You must be a Democrat in sheep's clothing... (J/K) Blame Al Qaeda for "artificially" inflating his polling support. The admin is about half/half without it. But you're insinuating that he somehow created this... If that's not what your insinuating, then you need to realize that wartime presidents are traditionally popular. Especially when we've been attacked. If you're insinuating that he somehow created this situation, then you're ahead of 'boy' in the "Dumbass Bag". There is only one precedent for this situation (see if you can guess what it is?) Unless Bush has a coronary, he will see this war through for the next 7 years. And then Dick Cheney will run... And win, with either Powell or - hold yer hat - McCain as VP. They would retain Powell as SecState if he's still on for the job... Now that's a Wartime administration. Get used to Bush. His polling #s are not inflated, beyond the attacks (and the worst is probably yet to come there). Thanks to Osama, we can look forward to at least 3 terms of Republican execs. If anyone wants to get mad about something, get mad about that.
I'm not insinuating that he created the war. And yes, it is very true that wartime Presidents have higher polling numbers. What I am saying is that if it weren't for the war, Bush's popularity poll numbers would be in the sh*tcan, especially with the Enron fiasco simmering and the economy stumbling. Bush will try to keep the war going for as long as he can because it keeps the public's mind off the fact that he is completely clueless when it comes to domestic issues, just like his father. And I disagree with you that Bush is a lock for a second term. The only way he is a lock is if (1) the war is still going on in 2004, and (2) the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Al Gore again.
Good to see at least acknowledgement of the electoral advantage to Bush of his 7 year war plan that he will put through unless he has a coronary. In their business careers Bush and his brothers like Neal were basically "deal makers" , engaging in ethically challenged deals, involving insider selling at Harking oil (SEC discontinued investigation of Dubya with no finding). and inflating the value of the Rangers by getting state money for the stadium,(Dubya) and , near indictment with recieving some punishment for his role in the Silverado Savings and Loan scandal ( Neal Bush. ) To wonder whether Bush would actually be motivated by the electoral advantage to himself or the economic advantage to his defense contractor contributors is not a big leap. Mother Jones on Bush Family Scandals
Hmmm, strangely enough the Bush Administration tune is my answer to this. The wafflers will waffle. The 'diametic opposition' will scream murder. The result is the same if there is no action from those groups. We agree ( I think) that a multilateral/international coalition/consensus is more desirable than unilateral action. However, it is not so desirable that we should cast off unilateral options if multilateral action is not forthcoming or adequate. I never said the international situation didn't matter . Working multilaterally can certainly increase international perceptions of legitimacy but an international solution is not always (actually almost never) available. When that is the case then acting unilaterally in our interests is the course we have to take. We cannot rule out unilateral action because the wafflers and the 'diametic opposition' want to forestall action. Besides, if we go open a can of whup-ass (there's a good political science term for you) on Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea it will not change the balance in the world. The likelihood of an escalation in any of those areas is nil. The Chinese are not coming back over the Yalu. And neither they nor the Russkies are coming over the hill to save Iran or Iraq. The international hit we'd take it fairly small and the gain potentially large. A 'legitimate forum' like what? Isn't there already a UN? Now in previous discussions I've said I'm all for development in areas of conflict (like the ME) where poverty exaccerbates the problems. I'm all for the US engaging international intstitutions to increase transparency and discussion on concerns ranging from security to the environment. BUT as long as individual states continue to make decisions based on their own interests, the US will suffer if we allow our fate to be decided by those internationalist institutions.
rocketmantex--i thought the knock on bush was that he had no clue when it comes to foreign affairs...with domestic issues he would be fine. just reitterating what the masses throw at me.
Just delivering my knock...don't know about anyone elses. He is a great wartime commander, but that is all I see that he is doing great.
