Articles

Feb. 10, 2003

Can we Win in Iraq

Iran announced today they have plans to begin uranium mining in the southern portion of the country. One of the richest oil countries in the world and they want to mine and process uranium for electrical generating plants.

As the Bush Administration struggles over Iraq, they are missing much of the change that is enveloping the world. The US in a position of power has an obligation to maintain peace and help others, yet the role has shifted since the 1950s and even the 1960s. No longer is the US the only dominant power. Power sharing is a critical element in today's alliance. Granted it is the discussion that helps refine and determine better outcomes. A society led by democratic debate is always a stronger society than one lead by a supreme leader. The collective consciousness is more powerful than even the brightest mind and dictators are rarely rocket scientists.

The US to convince the rest of the world that Hussein is a bad guy must present either compelling evidence or tie a horrendous event to Hussein. Powell's presentation to the UN while appealing to 71% of the US public was poorly received in Europe. Seventy percent of the English are against invading Iraq. Blair is fighting an uphill battle for the hearts and minds of the public and maybe just to remain in office. In Europe the numbers are even higher against invasion.

What is worse is Powell's evidence. When presenting evidence especially to refute propaganda it is extremely important for credibility to present evidence that is both accurate and verifiable. In attempting to make the al Qaeda / Hussein connection Powell presented evidence that was not only questionable but known by the administration to be also false. This is a fatal flaw in the development and support of the alliance and changing the political base in the Middle East

In the Administration's haste to justify an invasion they are sawing the legs off the table and forcing a showdown with both Iraq and our allies in Europe.

Winning a war is accomplished on more than a military basis. History has shown there is very little accomplished by war. It is the aftermath where the new alliances get sorted out. Hearst was hot to fight the Spanish in the 1890s and fabricated and stretched the truth well beyond any credibility. The problems that existed at the time in terms of a supply and control of sugar faded with time. Our control of Cuba much like the nation building in Afghanistan became a major political football eventually ending with the US granting independence to Cuba and 100 years later having to live with a rogue Communist country 90 miles from our border.

I fear we have now already lost more then we will gain in the battle to unseat Hussein. As much I as see the positive aspects of the change and support the destruction the Hussein government, the approach the Administration is locked into is confining and destructive. The Good Cop / Bad Cop game has a potential for a negative outcome if carried too far. If the Bad Cop threatens to beat up and kill the bad guy and then loses credibility by going too far the game becomes a negative. One using these methods has to know how far to push. Bush at this point may have passed the point of no return and be forced into action against all logic. If the US was the sole leader of the world then he could probably get away from an attack without allied support. Today as we see the Europeans refusing to back up NATO in defending Turkey the damage to the alliance is greater than the gains and may well prevent an invasion even after the build up. Unless Bush can displace Hussein, and in a very short time, then the threat of US military force looses its impact and our other enemies begin to view the US as a impotent paper tiger. Under these conditions the world becomes a more dangerous place, the cost of military protection has to escalate and the economy suffers.