Haven, since I don't agree with the premise of your question, I probably can't offer the answer you seek. France and Germany are our allies, and they are contractually bound through NATO to help defend our national security. Iraq, through its support of terrorists including Al Queda, is a threat to our people. We can't allow them to possess WMD, yet France and Germany are fighting to keep Saddam in power to preserve their business interests in Iraq. This is my opinion that you obviously don't share based on the content of your question. You ask me how long should France and Germany "be obliged to unconditionally support US initiatives that they don't agree with in order to discharge an obligation of a different era". Protecting ourselves is not some "initiative" that France and Germany have the right to ponder. They know that Saddam has WMD, and anybody who denies this fact is braindead. This movement to place more inspectors in Iraq is meant to buy time against the impending war. If France and Germany don't want to help us defend our shores against further terrorist attack, then all treaties of mutual defense need to be dissolved. I suppose then their obligation to us will end as well.
If a threat is real and immediate, and the people don't understand the threat, of course the leader should go to war without the majority support of the people. This is the real strength of our system. You aren't one of those guys who thinks that all national issues ought to be voted upon through real time internet connections, are you?
johnheath: Nice try, but you make a single untenable assumption that completely ruins your argument. 1. It's perfectly rational (not necessary correct, but rational) to assume that Saddam is not a threat. Many nations have WMD. Many leaders that we have not liked and considered crazy (Mao!) have possessed WMD. Yet deterrence has always functioned appropriately in the past. It is perfectly reasonable to assume it will in the future. In fact, aggressive behavior on the part of the US could be construed as the greatest threat to the current deterrence regime. Under classic theory... the only time someone launches, is if they believe they have no other choice. Hell, half of classic Cold War diplomacy was attempting ot put the other person in a position where they had to have the "last clear chance." Because you knew if you did... you'd win. 2. Independent question on your position... ...construing treaties in contractual terms is problematic, and interesting. I have a question regarding your particular interpretation: if nations do have an absolute contractual obligation created by their membership in NATO, is it triggered even if the "security threat" is precipitated purely by the unjustified aggression of the member requesting aid? Not saying the fact-pattern here fits those circumstances. However, I'm attempting to understand possible (extreme) ramifications of your position. You've attempted to frame the current discussion in purely objective criteria. Unfortunately for you, the underlying fact pattern does not allow it. The only situation in which NATO ties would give a clear, unadulterated obligation to aid, imo, would be in the clear-cut case of invasion. Regardless, my question is still valid becauase your original position is not watertight. Their are subjective criteria that cannot be definitively ascertained, hence, your supposed trigger is ineffectual.
If a threat is real and immediate Of course, this isn't necessarily the case. Why is the threat suddenly immediate now and it wasn't 6 months ago? Or 2 years ago? Or 5 years ago? You aren't one of those guys who thinks that all national issues ought to be voted upon through real time internet connections, are you? No, I'm one of those people that believes that a country putting lives at risk against the will of the people without making a clear case for doing so is irresponsible and a disaster waiting to happen. Expecting other countries to do so at the whim of the U.S. is ridiculous and selfish. Threatening to punish other countries for not doing the U.S.'s bidding is both naive and immature.
I would agree with you if this was an argument about Iran or North Korea, but Iraq is different. Powell showed the clear connection between Iraq and Al Queda, so in reality, Iraq has already attacked the U.S. You need to read about the Salmon Pak terrorist training camp, where the BBC proved using three corroborating sources that Iraq trained Al Queda members to hijack Boeing jets with boxcutters. Unlike other despotic regimes, Iraq has already shown its willingness to use biological weapons on civilian targets. Saddam's ex-mistress claims he watches tapes of the suffering Kurds he gassed for entertainment purposes. Your position in this little debate forces you to trust Saddam. You must give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether he will give WMD to terrorists for use against the West, and you must doubt the words of Powell and Bush. In reality, the first sign that your position is incorrect will be an attack against civilians in the West from terrorists using Iraqi WMD. Rational people are not willing to give Saddam the rope with which to hang us. Once again, your premise that Iraq is not an immediate threat is incorrect, so France and Germany are contractually bound to disarm Iraq now.
It was a threat, and Clinton knew it. He just didn't want to rock the international boat. I will never forget Sec. of Defense Cohen holding up a bag of sugar for the television cameras, proclaiming that the same amount of anthrax would kill a small city of Americans. Cohen stated rightly that Saddam must be stopped immediately because of the threat. Within weeks, Iraq kicked out the inspectors, Clinton lobbed in a few cruise missiles, and Iraq was allowed to continue building up its WMD program. Look, its been a nice debate, but I need to work. I agree that leaders need to make a case for war, but that wasn't your question. You don't see Iraq as an immediate threat so we can really not argue about this subject if we don't agree on the central points. cya.
Here's the New Republic essay that Kelly's column is drawn from. It's much more detail oriented, and thus is quite long. A very good read though. Part 1: http://www.tnr.com/082701/berman082701_partone.html Part 2: http://www.tnr.com/082701/berman082701_parttwo.html Part 3: http://www.tnr.com/082701/berman082701_partthree.html SJC, I know that people can change and repudiate the views of their youth; are there any articles/interviews that you know of in which Mr. Fischer discusses his past and provides, if not a mea culpa, then at least tells how his worldview has changed in the years since?
Here's a shorter, perhaps a summary, article by Berman. And here are some interesting articles (1, 2) about the glaring role of Israel in a war with Iraq. I originally became aware of the articles in Kaus's piece.
I apologize for quoting myself, but I'm trying to make a point. It is disingenuous to say that Rumsfeld is "rough around the edges" and doesn't speak for the Administration. Like I said, he is too intelligent to be doing this on his own... which is why I found the report hard to believe. Doing what he apparently suggests would have grave consequences for the NATO Alliance and relations with Europe in general. And we shouldn't care about that? Colin Powell and Bush speak for the U.S. in regards to foreign policy. Again, I just can't believe Rumsfeld would make statements and plans of this nature without White House approval. And if that's the case Powell is left hanging out to dry, with no honorable course left for him but to resign, IMO.
All this is true and I am thankful for it and I think the majority of all Germans is still thankful for it. However, even though I disagree with our current government's position, this cannot mean that Germany never has a right to disagree with the US because "those bastards owe you plenty". Buck Turgidson, yes, I read some such articles in German magazines years ago. But I don't think I can find any links online now. I remember having read such interviews, though.
SJC, Thank you for a mature response to johnheath. johnheath, I hope you aren't arguing that 'Ally' means they must always agree with us. Now that Germany is backing NATO, there's not much that they're doing that upsets me much. Why do you think they're 'bastards'?
Cohen, I too am glad that Germany has decided to honor its commitments. They shouldn't be applauded though for keeping their word to an ally. I don't know why you are asking me the following question if you read my comments. I hope you aren't arguing that 'Ally' means they must always agree with us. I think Iraq is an immediate threat to our security, and the security agencies of the world know this to be a fact. Once again, Germany is allowing Saddam to keep his WMD and delaying Saddam's removal for purely financial reasons. UN inspectors will never find the WMD. There are 100 inspectors in a large country with millions of possible hiding places. No Iraqi will cooperate or Saddam will kill their extended family. I think an ally would help us protect our people first, and then negotiate their business deals second- if not I label them as worthless bastards. Now that I am repeating myself, I should remove myself from this thread, but let me add one idea. I can invision a day in my lifetime when the world community will not stand for a man like Saddam to have power over a population. Why aren't the idealistic Western liberals behind this notion? I can't figure it out. I will have respect for the opinions of those who fight for human rights when they stop marching to keep Saddam Hussein in power. Those marches, if successful, will contribute to the murder and torture of possibly a 100,000 Iraqis. This number is not an exaggeration, since Saddam has already killed a million of his own. Saddam has murdered more Arabs and Muslims than any man alive, yet the American Liberal elite and the Arab league are fighting to disallow his removal because a few thousand civilians may get caught in the crossfire. When on Earth will the net effect of the Peacenik's actions become clear to their overly emotional psyches??
Do you remotely consider the possibility that your perception that all world leaders know for a fact that Saddam presents a serious threat to America might be just your opinion, and that of people who agree with you, and that others have different ones with at least as much validity, and are entitled to it? One more point...you contend that the US 'saved' Germany and gave it freedom, claiming that they were being oppressed by Hitler by virtue of not having the right to make their own choices...without going into too much historical detail, what freedom did we give them, but the freedom to agree with us instead if, as you maintain, they are obligated by loyalty and gratitude? What if they disagree with the present administration's claim that Hussein is a threat to NATO? Are they entitled to that opinion, or does the fact that it is our opinion make it fact? Are we also obligated to automatically support any position of our 'allies', irrespective of whether or not we agree about it's factuality? If Germany decided that, say, Saudi Arabia was a threat, do we have to jump to action on that claim, and would our disagreement with it constitute disloyalty? You will probably try and refute this entire post by claiming that Saddam being a threat is a 'fact', and maintain that anyone not recognizing said 'fact' is either lying or misinformed. If you start from the position that you are right, you will usually agree with yourself...In which case I have one other question...ever heard of the 'Domino Principle'? People were willing to kill and die in support of that 'fact' too, and did...
One last point for Macbeth. You correctly say that - You will probably try and refute this entire post by claiming that Saddam being a threat is a 'fact', and maintain that anyone not recognizing said 'fact' is either lying or misinformed. Yes, I think those opposing this premise are misinformed (I don't assume anybody on this BBS is lying). Bush, Powell, Cheney, and Rumsfeld also share my opinion, so get ready for this invasion within 6 weeks. I will take great satisfaction in knowing that our country elected the right President for these trying times, who is a true leader and not a poll watcher. If we do the moral thing in this current Iraq crisis, history will judge us by the results of the invasion. Public opinion before the invasion will be irrelevant.
I agree with you that the invasion will definitely happen within the next few weeks and I do hope that you are right about the results of the invasion.
There is no question that US involvement in Europre did greatly lead to freedom and prosperity for Western Europe. However, it was not a self-sacrificing act done for the sake of spreading freedom and democracy as you suggest but (like almost every US involvement) was done because of US self-interest. The US got involved because Hitler's takeover and domination of all of Europe was a threat to US national interests and US national security. After the war, the aid that the US gave to Europe was to prevent communist takeovers and subsequent domination of Europe by the USSR, not primarily out of selfless, self-sacrificing motives. Now with regard to Iraq, keep in mind that about 20 years ago during the Iran-Iraq war, this same Saddam Hussein who is now personified as evil incarnate was supplied by and supported by the same USA. But Saddam was no less evil then. Of course this is not the only example. The US has and does support all sorts of unsavory regimes throughout history and especially during the Cold War all in support of the national interest. I have no doubt that there is a certain amount of idealism amongst Americans and a belief that the US acts primarily out of idealism and self-sacrifice. But to suggest that this is the overriding or primary reason for US involvement in past and future actions is disingenuous at best.
every nation acts on its own interests...no nation is pure. no nation is entirely altruistic. i've seen french involvement in the american revolution brought up a few times on these message boards recently...think they had any self-interest in seeing the british lose its colonies here?
And there's more... US involvment in WWII was for an even less vague reason than a 'threat to national security'...it was the fact that Hitler declared war on the US immediately following FDR's war statement on Dec. 8th, and Operation Drum Roll was launched within days...said operation being a very successfull U-Boat strike against American shipping in the Atlantic and in the Gulf of Mexico... This fairy tale many Americans spout about the selfless USA making the ultimate sacrifice at the alter of Freedom is as naive and ill-informed as it gets...If it was about 'Freedom' then most Americans wouldn't have been quite content to let the Germans roll over much of Europe while maintaining that it was none of their affair...but they were..The last pre-Pearl Harbour poll still showed over 3/4 of Americans favoured non-involvment despite the fact that "Freedom" had been backed into a resilient but ever diminishing corner...And post WWII documents from the desk of Speer et al shows that before and during this time America was the biggest trading partner and foreign munitions supplier Nazi Germany had...'war profiteering' was much censured, but only after Dec. 8th... Additionally, the common belief that the USA won the war is also grossly inaccurate..It played a highly significant role, yes, essential even, but no more so and probably less than either Great Britain or the Soviet Union...Great Britain was in the war from 1939, not 1941, and without their resitance and heroic repulsion of Operation Sea Lion there would have been no Europe for the US to 'save'...it would have been fait accompli, and any US lead invasion without a EUropean springboard would have been impossible. And as for the USSR...over 75% of WWII casualties ( from both sides) were along the Eastern front, including most of the elite Panzer units. Without Soviet determination and Stalin's ( almost insane) willingness to throw millions of Soviet men into the cauldron, D-Day would have been a logistical impossibility. Nazi Germany was the most effective, best trained armed force in the world, and still almost managed to win the war on two fronts...Had they been fighting on one front they would have been virtually unstoppable. What the US brought to the table was essential too...A huge, fairly modern if initially inexperienced armed force backed by an almost unlimited industrial complex which was ( importantly) untouched by the ravages of war, and fairly safe being seperated by oceans...And you could easily argue that the US pretty much single handedly won the war in the Pacific, but to say that we won the War, period, is grossly innacurate. But, as pointed out earlier, we did it for our own reasons, having already passed on the chance to do it for "freedom' despite Churchill's many pleas...To his credit, FDR wanted to do it, and largely for fairly idealistic reasons, but he was repeatedly rebuffed by a war-weary public... To say that we won WWI is even more innaccurate, as our strategic and logistical effect/contribution was miles and miles behind those of Britain, France, etc. and arguably behind other such nations as Canada and Australia. Re: the Marshall Plan...Marshall himself stated that it was entirley self-serving. It was done for the sole purpose of trying to counter potential Soviet influence in a destroyed Western Europe, and thereby furthering US power on the Global Scale...and Bretton Woods was also part of the whole deal, a little ackowledged point.The instances where the US has gotten involved in any foreign situation for any reason other than self agrandisement are very few indeed, and historical knowledge of same is part of the reason why this clumsy diplomatic effort on the White House's part has met with such little international sympathy anywhere but in the Good Ol' We Won 'Em Both For Freedom Believing USA...
I agree...but when you do it externally, it's called Imperialism, or agression...just like what we called the Soviet Union, or Iraq, or others when they pursued their own interests on foreign soil by military means in spite of world opinion...
