IMPENDING WAR WITH IRAQ: WAGING "WAR," EUROPEAN STYLE
By Paul Walfield
Summary:
The article below discusses the seemingly ingenious plan by the French and Germans to avert war in Iraq, along with the probable motives of the French and Germans. The article points out the hazards facing America, not just from Iraq and terrorists, but from our "allies" as well.
Finding itself between a rock and a hard place, America has even tougher foreign policy decisions to make in the coming days and weeks. The article proposes possible Ameri- can alternative courses of action in the face of French and German contrariness.
The "old" Europe has a plan that on the surface appears imaginative, but if implemented as proposed, would be harder to sell than Cheez-Wiz and a box of wine to a Frenchman.
Evidently, "old" Europe's new definition of war also includes a "shot" across the bow of the United States.
The United Nations passed Resolution 1441, which demanded the disarmament of Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has so far refused to cooperate, and being the righteous and steadfast folks that they are, the UN has likewise refused to accept "no" for an answer.
The United States wants to enforce the resolution militarily and, following the conflict, remain in country to ensure a peaceful Iraq will immerge from the conflict. So far, the detractors from military intervention have complained that "no one" is talking about how long we will have to remain in Iraq after the war, the potential astronomical costs, and, last but not least, how dare we impose ourselves on the free and sovereign Iraqi people.
However, if you say "please." and promise to take years to negotiate the occupation of a country without threatening to bomb innocent schoolchildren, all is copasetic.
Germany and France have "unveiled" their secret plan to avert war in Iraq. It is a simple and ingenious plan. Thousands of inspectors, guarded by tens of thousand of armed soldiers, will take over Iraq without firing a shot. All of Iraq will become a no-fly zone and all of its institutions will come under international control. All they need is for Saddam Hussein to sign on the dotted line, and war is averted.
Being contradictory is not to be avoided. While chastising America for not understanding the perils and costs of occupying Iraq after war, German Foreign Minister Fischer said, "Is the United States ready for a longterm presence?" then adding, "The idea (Iraq) will suddenly blossom into a democracy, I do not share." Germany then proposed longterm occupation of Iraq by German and French troops with American help. Go figure.
It is "war," as defined by the 21st. century French and Germans. Unlike in the past, when Germany defined war as kill everything in sight, the Germans have joined the French definition of war as "are my hands raised high enough?" The Germans are now goimg along with continuing the French tradition and axiom that giving up is better than standing tall.
Saddam Hussein, driven with the courage of someone who doesn't have to fight, will no doubt balk at the German proposal. However, he will surely desire to maintain the appearance of wanting to negotiate the occupation of his country for many months and probably years, which is certainly what the French and Germans, along with the Russians, are really after.
The ostensible motive of "old" Europe is humanitarian, but the reality is quite different. Keeping a vile tyrant like Saddam in power cannot be humanitarian in the long run, au contraire, it is to weaken the United States, among other things. The "old" Europe had already begun that strategy by blocking, at least so far, NATO from aligning itself with the United States and America's plan to protect NATO member Turkey with patriot missiles; in the event of war with Iraq.
If the U.S.A. opposes the German-French plan, America is seen as the bad guy, or worse "proves" the United States just wants war, and in effect allows the possibility that the dissenters were right all along in their contention that America wants to be an imperial- istic power.
If America demands that the proposal to "peacefully occupy" Iraq be what it purports to be and has teeth, America falls into the trap of long and protracted negotiations during which time, support for armed conflict will diminish. America is between a rock and a hard place.
The United States can, on the one hand, take the initiative and run with it. Call for a new resolution authorizing the U.S.A. to move its troops into Iraq and take over the Iraqi institutions and Iraqi military bases, and for free rein in Iraq. It must do this quickly to avoid further "revelations" and proposals by "old" Europe.
The new resolution must fully outline the spirit of the proposal for occupying Iraq, and must be announced quickly to avoid any more surprises and, most importantly, set a date for "occupation." We could demand that French, German, Russian, and Canadian troops be the first into Iraq to ensure peaceful compliance by the Hussein regime.
The Europeans will have to go on defense. America cannot afford to allow more time and obfuscation from the French, Germans, and Russians. Their purpose is to lessen Ameri- ca's standing as the world's sole superpower.
Allowing rogue nations to remain in power is to their advantage in the short run. Embar- rassing the U.S.A. and humiliating our President and foreign policy is a strategic goal of "old" Europe. They are, in fact, our rivals, and not our allies. The term "ally" is from the French, "alier," which means to bind. The only thing the French want to "bind" is a coalition against American interests.
On the other hand, the United States can reject the plan. The U.S.A. can point out that, even with thousands of inspectors and troops occupying Iraq, Saddam Hussein will remain in power and the Iraqis can still not cooperate with the inspectors, merely waiting them out and continuing as they have always done in the past. Any exercise to "beef-up" the inspectors is an exercise in futility and allows the Iraqi regime more time to do the evils outlined before the United Nations Security Council by the U.S. Secretary of State.
Dealing with rogue nations and terrorists was pronounced by President Bush as a long and tough battle that requires determination on the part of Americans. Dealing with our former "allies" must be fought with the same determination. The United States can truly say, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, "enough, enough."
The Middle East & the Problem of Iraq
Page Two
Page One
The Problem of Rogue States:
Iraq as a Case History
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Paul Walfield is a freelance writer and member of the State Bar of California, with an undergraduate degree in Psychology and post-graduate study in behavioral and analytical psychology. He resided for a number of years in the small town of Houlton, Maine and is now a California attorney. Paul can be contacted at the following email address: paul.walfield@cox.net
Besides The Progressive Conservative, some of Paul Walfield's recently published articles can be found in:
Africa: Black Africa *
Africa: North Africa *
American Government 1
American Government 2 *
American Government 3 *
American Government 4
American Government 5 *
American Politics *
Anglosphere *
Arabs
Arms Control & WMD *
Aztlan Separatists *
Big Government
Black Africa *
Bureaucracy *
Canada *
China *
Civil Liberties *
Communism
Congress, U.S. *
Conservative Groups *
Conservative vs. Liberal
Constitutional Law *
Counterterrorism *
Criminal Justice *
Disloyalty *
Economy
Education *
Elections, U.S. *
Eminent Domain *
Energy & Environment
English-Speaking World *
Ethnicity & Race *
Europe *
Europe: Jews
Family Values *
Far East *
Fiscal Policy, U.S. *
Foreign Aid, U.S. *
Foreign Policy, U.S.
France *
Hispanic Separatism *
Hispanic Treason *
Human Health *
Immigration
Infrastructure, U.S. *
Intelligence, U.S. *
Iran *
Iraq *
Islamic North Africa
Islamic Threat *
Islamism *
Israeli vs. Arabs *
Jews & Anti-Semitism
Jihad & Jihadism *
Jihad Manifesto I *
Jihad Manifesto II *
Judges, U.S. Federal
Judicial Appointments *
Judiciary, American *
Latin America *
Latino Separatism
Latino Treason *
Lebanon *
Leftists/Liberals *
Legal Issues
Local Government, U.S. *
Marriage & Family *
Media Political Bias
Middle East: Arabs *
Middle East: Iran *
Middle East: Iraq *
Middle East: Israel
Middle East: Lebanon *
Middle East: Syria *
Middle East: Tunisia
Middle East: Turkey *
Militant Islam *
Military Defense *
Military Justice
Military Weaponry *
Modern Welfare State *
Morality & Decency
National Identity *
National Security *
Natural Resources *
News Media Bias
North Africa *
Patriot Act, USA *
Patriotism *
Political Culture *
Political Ideologies
Political Parties *
Political Philosophy *
Politics, American *
Presidency, U.S.
Private Property *
Property Rights *
Public Assistance *
Radical Islam
Religion & America *
Rogue States & WMD *
Russia *
Science & Ethics
Sedition & Treason *
Senate, U.S. *
Social Welfare Policy *
South Africa
State Government, U.S. *
Subsaharan Africa *
Subversion *
Syria *
Terrorism 1
Terrorism 2 *
Treason & Sedition *
Tunisia *
Turkey *
Ukraine
UnAmerican Activity *
UN & Its Agencies *
USA Patriot Act *
U.S. Foreign Aid
U.S. Infrastructure *
U.S. Intelligence *
U.S. Senate *
War & Peace
Welfare Policy *
WMD & Arms Control
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor