************************************************* Someone above mentioned the Eurocrats not wanting to take this on themselves. I think it's more a matter of they are incapable of it and that's a cause of some of the anti-American resentment. That's understandable I think. It must be difficult to know that your safety is dependent on a country you hate because of your jealousy and resentment. ************************************************* Hmmm. You might be partially right, but I can't believe that militarily they could not take on Saddam as a joint coalition. Surely the militaries of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, etc. could contribute in a war with a second world dictator. I think the issue is much more desire. Saddam isn't scary because of his military might but because of his terrorist capabilites (hidden nuclear, chemical and biological agents). I think they have a war-by-diplomacy-only mentality. And who knows - maybe this will be another foreign policy disaster for us and we'll later applaud the Continent's wisdom and restraint?
Who do you mean by "they" ? Iraq or the EU ? Somehow I can't imagine applauding anything from the continent but time will tell.
I meant some or all of the EU nations. And, you're right: I can't imagine applauding them. In their case I often feel that "all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to sit back and do nothing." But, that said, I still don't think that Bush has built a good international case for attacking Saddam except for "this is a nasty guy with nukes - let's take him out." I can only hope that there's more behind-the-scenes justification.
Great post, White. I believe Israel would respond in a nuclear manner but ONLY if it came down to the last straw, i.e. they are on the verge of being wiped out. I don't think they're going to use nukes if Saddam lobs Scuds. If he lobs chemically-tipped or biologically-tipped Scuds, however, and depending on the scale of the damage, who knows how they will respond. I think they will follow what they did last time and let the US do the fighting. Bush is going to keep them on as tight a leash as possible to avoid the conflict from spreading. This time we don't have the Arab coalition, making it even more vital that Israel restrain itself. This all presumes a quick tactical victory for us, mind you. As far as the Europeans, they have no motivation to take on Iraq without the U.S. Besides being incapable, why would they? They have not been directly threatened or attacked and they don't have the political need for it. Many of their leaders have flat-out called the US response wrong (i.e. Germany's Schroeder). Combine that with the anti-American malaise that affects much of the continent and you're left with inaction. You would think Hitler would have taught them something....Besides, and this is key, they know they can rely on the US to police the world. It certainly saves them a lot of resources while they reap the benefits of American overwatch...I have to say I admire the Brits. They've been with us through thick and thin. Much respect to you and all other veterans who served and sacrificed when others ran.
IMHO, I doubt the people of Israel would do it. They realize that they would be condeming millions to death where there was no fault, and to no purpose. Remember, IRAQ's evil is essentially about one man, or even say, one man + 10,000 men that gladly carry out his orders. nitro
i think i might add a plug here for the australians too. the prime minister here has again reaffirmed australia's commitment to the spirit of the ANZUS pact (which, after new zealand's withdrawal is sort of defunct - '86) by supporting any action against iraq with australian troops.
The Biggest Threat To Peace Which country really poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003? TIME asks for readers' views http://www.time.com/time/europe/gdml/peace2003.html regards wild
The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance By BRIAN ENO Posted Sunday, Jan. 12, 2003; 2.09 p.m. GMT Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?" I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith â the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle. Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward â courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought â America's real wealth â is squandered. This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President. When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance. Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important â civilized, in fact â to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got. Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea? Brian Eno is a musician who believes that regime change begins at home