So, the hour is finally upon us. It looks like the war we all knew was coming will finally arrive. A while ago, I listened to Bush address the media in the White House. I thought he was quite convincing. He seems to have logical reasons for going to war, but I'm still not sure it's the right thing to do. The sad thing is that I believe that might be the best we can hope for. At this point, Saddam will be ousted from office one way or another. The reality of the situation is that once a major democratic nation commits to a major foreign policy decision, it will almost certainly continue at least until the government can claim some form of victory from the situation. The politicians seem to be too worried about looking bad if they cave in. In general, I would say that I am supportive of the American and British policies. Two of the costs of war that Bush doesn't talk about much are the effect it will have on other Islamic nations and the effect it will have on international diplomacy. It's actually quite difficult to predict how other Islamic nations will react.
I worry that this will be seen as a heavy-handed act of American imperialism. Whether it is true or not may be irrelevant. I've been amazed at how much hatred there is towards the US from some people I've spoken to. Most of it seems to be caused by American foreign policy. On the other hand, Chris Edey (UW's newly elected student body president) believes that the image of Iraqis cheering as American and British soldiers chase off their oppressors will be a powerful positive image. I'm really very unsure of how the Iraqi's will respond.
With regards to the rest of the world, I believe that this may be the point where the UN begins a slide towards irrelevance. The weird thing about this whole episode is that from the start, the Americans were saying, "we're going to war if we have to, with our without the support of the rest of the world". All this haggling in the UN was done mostly to try to take the moral high road, but it would have never changed a thing. The simple fact of the matter is that the UN doesn't mirror reality anymore. When the UN was established, a security council was created that included the following permanent members: America, Britain, China, France and Russia. These countries were the most powerful countries militarily at the time since Japan and Germany adopted a much more pacifist foreign policy after world war 2. In modern times, the balance of power has shifted heavily in the favour of the Americans who are the only super power. Each permanent security council member has the ability to veto a resolution placed before the security council. Now the reason why this idea should work is that if one of the big 5 doesn't agree, the other countries would likely not want to proceed with the resolution because it would not want to start a large destructive war with a powerful nation. The problem as I see it is that the veto doesn't hold the weight of conviction anymore. If hypothetically, a resolution to invade Iraq gained a majority in the security council (it won't, but just for argument's sake), both France and Russia would veto it. Regardless, the US will go ahead and invade Iraq. What are France and Russia going to do about it? Nothing. Oh they won't be happy about it, but the response will be very Grandpa Simpson-like, "I'll give'm the frowning of a lifetime". They simply don't feel strongly enough about the issue to militarily force the Americans to stop and I believe they should actually be willing to do so if they'd be willing to use the veto. Essentially, if the Americans don’t get a resolution passed by the security council, it is not enough of a deterrent for them to abandon the resolution, but it must be if the UN security council is to stay relevant. The France-Germany-Russia position is very popular because it's viewed as the peaceful solution. However, in reality, their peaceful solution will likely lead to a further delay of the inevitable. The Americans and British seem to be saying that waiting and hoping for change is not a credible strategy, so now is the time for action. The French, Germans and Russians seem to be saying that we shouldn't go to war, but Saddam doesn't seem like much of a threat right now so let's not rush things. Well, what if things don't improve even later on? The French, Germans and Russians still say they would not be willing to go to war and disarm Iraq. In my opinion, the problem with the pacifist argument is that it isn't clear how anything will ever get accomplished. They want peace, but don't seem to be willing to do what is necessary to ensure it.
I feel obligated to add the disclaimer that you should take what I've said with a grain of salt in case you didn't anyway. Did you ever watch the movie Starship Troopers? The movie was mediocre at best, but it was based upon an excellent novel by Robert Heinlein. In the movie, the special effects and battle scenes kind of overshadow what I believe are the really interesting aspects of the film: the politics. In the society portrayed in Starship Troopers, you only gained the right to vote after having served in the military so that all important decisions were made by veterans. Now you could argue that this would make the society very militaristic, but the contrary opinion was shown in the book. Only veterans who had seen war could ever truly know the costs and so would enter into military conflicts carefully. Although I haven't thought extensively about this concept, I think it has some merit. Honestly, I would never expect anyone of importance to take me seriously about this Iraqi situation. First of all, my knowledge is limited and I've only done a small amount of research, but I still wouldn't expect to be taken seriously even if I was the foremost expert on the matter. Why? Because if Colin Powell read my website and said, "Well Jason, I think you're right on the money. Since you're generally supportive of the war, I'm sure you wouldn't mind joining the infantry and helping us out", I'd say, "Hell no"! I don't feel strongly enough about this war to want to join the army. I don't think that gives me any right to dictate to those who do have the conviction. Even though, I may have completely invalidated my opinion with the previous statement, I believe the same is true of France, Germany and Russia. Frankly, anyone can talk a good game, but if they don't have the conviction to do what is necessary, I don't think they deserve to have a say.
The World I Know
