A rchive Date
[ 08-09-2002 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/worthington.html
U. S. - superpower and world policeman
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
September 8, 2002
What to do about Iraq, if anything?
Should it be attacked by America, and if so why? And if not, why not? Even America's staunchest allies are uneasy about the prospects which, to some, seem to be approaching the point of no return.
Britain, under Prime Minister Tony Blair, is President Bush's steadiest ally, while one of the most fragile is our very own Jean Chretien who says the reason for wanting Saddam Hussein eliminated "is not very clear."
One sees what one wants to see.
Pragmatically, the issue is grotesquely clear. If America attacks and succeeds, it is right in the world of realpolitik. If it fails, it is wrong. It's that simple.
This is not a moral or philosophical issue. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are a practical matter. If people like Jean Chretien can't see a "clear reason" why Saddam should be eliminated, well, they won't see anything.
During the Cold War there were restraints on "rogue" nations, defined differently, depending on whose side one favoured. Neither the U.S. nor the USSR wanted war, so they exercised controls on erratic regimes that depended on them.
That's no longer the case. There's only one superpower today - America which, sadly or gladly, is relatively benign and can be tweaked or goaded with impunity. A more malicious superpower wouldn't tolerate dissension.
America is reluctant to play world policeman, yet if she doesn't, who will? With the exception of things like World Health and humanitarian agencies, the UN is useless now that the Cold War is history.
UN members have their own agendas. Most don't practise values they judge the developed world by: law and justice.
Iraq's problem is Saddam Hussein. Period. Eliminate him, and the problem has been alleviated. Like Yasser Arafat, as long as Saddam lives, he's a menace.
Forget the nonsense that the European Union spouts - like Saddam's no threat to us ... so what if he kills his own people or makes weapons of obscene destruction, he buys from us and pays his bills. Europe's blind-eye approach to reality has led to great wars in Europe and post-war terrorism that until 9/11 had mostly escaped North America.
Poison gas
The fact that Saddam Hussein has used poison gas and chemical weapons on rebellious Kurds, as well as on Iran (which reciprocated) is sufficient reason to get rid of him, even if personally shooting members of his staff and family aren't.
The man is a malignant tumour destroying his country. Forget rubbish about Iraqis and Muslims feeling pride that he challenges America. Russians wept when Stalin died.
UN weapons inspectors are a bad joke. With no inhibiting mentor like the Soviet Union restraining certain regimes, as America once controlled its client allies, regimes eager for weapons of mass destruction or destabilization should be stopped before they get started.
President Bush's daddy, guided by Colin Powell when he was a soldier, miscalculated and failed to eliminate Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War. Powell is now Secretary of State, urging Bush the Younger to show similar restraint. Wrong.
A main argument by allies who don't want America to attack Saddam is that it will destabilize the Middle East, offend Muslim countries, and alienate friends. This is more nonsense. A case could be made that America doesn't need friends in the Middle East, it needs respect and compliance.
Reality is that Muslim countries don't much like one another, and none like Iraq, though they fear Saddam Hussein.
Palestinians aren't liked, though Israelis are liked even less. Arabs oppress and kill their own people with impunity. Few give a hoot if Iraqis are hurt.
Winning matters
In the Muslim world, as elsewhere, winning is all that matters. Those who warned that war in Afghanistan would aid only the Russians, would incur the wrath of all Afghans and all Muslims, that Afghanistan was a graveyard of invading armies, blah, blah, blah, have been proven irrefutably wrong.
Today, Afghanistan has a chance; yesterday it was hopeless.
From all accounts, President Bush is determined to attack Iraq or, rather, to eliminate Saddam. This doesn't imply or need a Gulf War alliance. Iraq is a shambles, without the means to withstand U.S. attack unless by using chemical or biological weapons.
One hopes that U.S. intelligence by now has a fair idea of Saddam's movements. Maybe a surgical strike could get him. If a thousand Iraqi civilians are killed in order to kill Saddam - no problem. If a thousand are killed and Saddam escapes - a big public relations problem.
That's President Bush's dilemma: when to go, and how to ensure success. Saddam Hussein represents all maniacal despots. Eliminate him, and the message gets through to others, and the world is safer for tomorrow.
That's surely what the war on terrorism is about, even if Jean Chretien doesn't get it.
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|