![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldRight now, I'm in a rather interesting position.
It begins with the question--an entirely legitimate one, to my mind--of how do we begin preparing for Iraq after Saddam? There will be plenty of refugees, that is for certain; there will be the pressing problem of managing a country that has been driven to the brink of catastrophe and then pushed over the edge; there is, in short, a set of entirely legitimate reasons to question the way in which the United States government seems to be planning to fight the war, without any clear and unquestioned support. (I'm excluding Britain and Australia from this list since public opinion in both countries is sharply anti-war and Blair has staked his political career on the outcome.)
This is normal. All alliances between sovereign countries do see disputes on how matters of policy affected all members will be resolved--look at the European Union. It's only alliance systems which are not authentic alliance systems, but which rather mask one member-states hegemony over the rest, which do not see disputes. (For example, see the Warsaw Pact. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only time Soviet initiatives were blocked by the satellite states was after die Wende when the new democracies were rather more interested in ending the alliance.)
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to have forgotten this. It looks like Cheney and Rumsfeld (likely not Bush) seem to define "ally," in their mental dictionaries, as the equivalent of "vassal state." Unquestioned obedience to American dictates--in Europe, in Canada, everywhere--seems to be what Bush wants.
This is rather stupid, not least because even 54% of Americans didn't want to go without a specific resolution. Without clear consensus, even if things go perfectly and we get a Norway-on-the-Euphrates, the intervention will be problematic. And if--as is much more likely--post-Saddam Iraq becomes either a post-Baathist dictatorship or an American protectorate or both, the United States after Bush will find that, sorry, they don't have any allies within a few thousand kilometres of Iraq, Israel excepted.
I consider myself an Ameriphile, all things said. I mean, I'm not a
Trotskyite, or an anti-globalization activist, or anything like that. Yet, the United States under Bush is very badly indeed managing its alliance, applying what my friend James called a "Mel Gibson revenge flick attitude" whenever they receive even mild criticism. Alas, it seems like the warbloggers--who are forgetting about a lot of things like sanity, and politeness, and good sense--are making policy. Take Steve Den Beste, for instance, who seems to think that Tom Clancy has everything right, down to the advanced-weapons fetish, and he is driven by a desire to "diplomatically nuke" France and Germany.
http://www.denbeste.nu
Den Beste would now like to include Austria in that list, now that it reminded the United States of its half-century neutrality in forbidding the shipment of American matériel across its territory. He wants to make examples, presumably pour encourager les autres and to keep the allies in line. Judging by recent reports of plans to close down US military bases in Germany and relocate them to supposedly more compliant states like Hungary and Poland, this seems to be the current plan.
The Bush Administration seems interested in cultivating new alliances, for instance, the states of Rumsfeld's so-called "New Europe," in the area of the former Soviet bloc. Presumably these countries would accept direct offensives aimed at curtailing unwanted signs of independence. A pity that they're unlikely to do so since, as I wrote earlier at http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=rfmcdpei&itemid=165323, all of Europe--not just France and Germany--is quite hostile to participation in the Iraq war. For instance, from the Baltic Times, we can see Estonians' reaction here, at http://www.balticsww.com/wkcrier/daily_news.htm:
Myself, I think (and I certainly hope!) that despite the recent and visible divisions, the EU will be in a decent position after Iraq, united by a shared resentment of American diktats. The European Union has a ways to go, but it and its component states (past and present) are no means as insignificant as pro-Bush partisans would have us believe. If, as Negri et al wrote in their Empire, the United States is the new Rome, then (as was observed recently in the New Left Review) it is important to remember that Japan is not Rhodes, Europe is not Macedonia, even Brazil and Russia are not Egypt. The United States might be a hyperpower, but power is far more dispersed than in Rome's day--the European Union is roughly comparable already, and the more that the Bush Administration and thier ilk dissipate American prestige and power, the more quickly they will unite.
There is, in short, a strong chance that within a decade's time, despite the historically useful role played by the United States, it will be isolated. And I think it just a pity that all Americans will pay for the follies of the Bush part 2.
- I support the idea of an American war in Iraq, if only because it will free that country form stasis and release a lot of suppressed potential for change.
- At the same time, I support the idea that the United States--i.e. the Bush Administration--really needs to get slapped down.
It begins with the question--an entirely legitimate one, to my mind--of how do we begin preparing for Iraq after Saddam? There will be plenty of refugees, that is for certain; there will be the pressing problem of managing a country that has been driven to the brink of catastrophe and then pushed over the edge; there is, in short, a set of entirely legitimate reasons to question the way in which the United States government seems to be planning to fight the war, without any clear and unquestioned support. (I'm excluding Britain and Australia from this list since public opinion in both countries is sharply anti-war and Blair has staked his political career on the outcome.)
This is normal. All alliances between sovereign countries do see disputes on how matters of policy affected all members will be resolved--look at the European Union. It's only alliance systems which are not authentic alliance systems, but which rather mask one member-states hegemony over the rest, which do not see disputes. (For example, see the Warsaw Pact. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the only time Soviet initiatives were blocked by the satellite states was after die Wende when the new democracies were rather more interested in ending the alliance.)
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration seems to have forgotten this. It looks like Cheney and Rumsfeld (likely not Bush) seem to define "ally," in their mental dictionaries, as the equivalent of "vassal state." Unquestioned obedience to American dictates--in Europe, in Canada, everywhere--seems to be what Bush wants.
This is rather stupid, not least because even 54% of Americans didn't want to go without a specific resolution. Without clear consensus, even if things go perfectly and we get a Norway-on-the-Euphrates, the intervention will be problematic. And if--as is much more likely--post-Saddam Iraq becomes either a post-Baathist dictatorship or an American protectorate or both, the United States after Bush will find that, sorry, they don't have any allies within a few thousand kilometres of Iraq, Israel excepted.
I consider myself an Ameriphile, all things said. I mean, I'm not a
Trotskyite, or an anti-globalization activist, or anything like that. Yet, the United States under Bush is very badly indeed managing its alliance, applying what my friend James called a "Mel Gibson revenge flick attitude" whenever they receive even mild criticism. Alas, it seems like the warbloggers--who are forgetting about a lot of things like sanity, and politeness, and good sense--are making policy. Take Steve Den Beste, for instance, who seems to think that Tom Clancy has everything right, down to the advanced-weapons fetish, and he is driven by a desire to "diplomatically nuke" France and Germany.
http://www.denbeste.nu
Den Beste would now like to include Austria in that list, now that it reminded the United States of its half-century neutrality in forbidding the shipment of American matériel across its territory. He wants to make examples, presumably pour encourager les autres and to keep the allies in line. Judging by recent reports of plans to close down US military bases in Germany and relocate them to supposedly more compliant states like Hungary and Poland, this seems to be the current plan.
The Bush Administration seems interested in cultivating new alliances, for instance, the states of Rumsfeld's so-called "New Europe," in the area of the former Soviet bloc. Presumably these countries would accept direct offensives aimed at curtailing unwanted signs of independence. A pity that they're unlikely to do so since, as I wrote earlier at http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=rfmcdpei&itemid=165323, all of Europe--not just France and Germany--is quite hostile to participation in the Iraq war. For instance, from the Baltic Times, we can see Estonians' reaction here, at http://www.balticsww.com/wkcrier/daily_news.htm:
Critics say leaders from the Baltic governments are kowtowing to the superpower United States. "The public reaction was so negative, it amazed me," said Peep Mardiste, who heads Estonia's Green Movement. "People were angered about the secrecy around the letter. No one was consulted beforehand and no one explained it."
That unease extended into mainstream media. Monday's Aripaev, Estonia's normally pro-government business newspaper, rebuked leaders for becoming entangled in "a dangerous and irresponsible game," arguing that Estonia's pro-U.S. stance could make it a terrorist target.
The official backing for Washington's Iraq policy appeared to confirm divisions between what U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the "old Europe"-meaning France and Germany-and ex-communist states. But recent polls in the allegedly "new Europe" Baltic states suggest far more public affinity for the French and German anti-war views, with over two-thirds of Baltic residents saying they opposed military action in Iraq. Prominent Estonian writer Jaan Kaplinksi has also launched a nationwide petition expressing "astonishment" that the government signed the ten-nation letter, saying the statement would reflect the majority Estonian opinion.
Myself, I think (and I certainly hope!) that despite the recent and visible divisions, the EU will be in a decent position after Iraq, united by a shared resentment of American diktats. The European Union has a ways to go, but it and its component states (past and present) are no means as insignificant as pro-Bush partisans would have us believe. If, as Negri et al wrote in their Empire, the United States is the new Rome, then (as was observed recently in the New Left Review) it is important to remember that Japan is not Rhodes, Europe is not Macedonia, even Brazil and Russia are not Egypt. The United States might be a hyperpower, but power is far more dispersed than in Rome's day--the European Union is roughly comparable already, and the more that the Bush Administration and thier ilk dissipate American prestige and power, the more quickly they will unite.
There is, in short, a strong chance that within a decade's time, despite the historically useful role played by the United States, it will be isolated. And I think it just a pity that all Americans will pay for the follies of the Bush part 2.
