[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens' Hypothetical Iraq War
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 00:28:19 -0800 (PST)
The threat
of unilateral veto from Paris, Moscow, and
Beijing.
Lets' see. John, Jack, Mary and Bob are discussing
something. John, Jack and Mary are all of the same
opinion, Bob is the only one that differs. So they all
threaten Bob with a "unilateral veto."
O.K.
--- Eric <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Christopher Hitchens plays post-game quarterback,
> giving his view of how the Iraq War should have
> been handled.
>
> complete story at: http://www.slate.com/id/2138332/
>
>
>
> The long report in the May-June Foreign Affairs
> gives us a view of the regime that confirms the
> essential contours of Kanan Makiya's Republic of
> Fear. A system of hideous cruelty we have learned
> to take for granted, but this also reminds us of a
> system of amazing irrationality. Saddam Hussein
> wanted, until the very last days, to maintain
> ambiguity about his possession of weapons of mass
> destruction. Given his past record, there was
> absolutely no reason why any serious government
> should have taken his word that he had dropped
> this stance. (And we also know, from the Duelfer
> report and many other sources, that he hoped to
> retain his latent ability to restart production
> once the sanctions?which were themselves a crime
> against the Iraqi people?had been lifted or
> rendered ineffective.) It is in the light of that
> last point that one of the article's crucial
> discoveries must be read. Saddam believed until
> the end that the French and Russian governments
> would save him. He also knew what we?at the
> time?did not: The oil-for-food system had turned
> into a self-sustaining racket that cemented his
> support in French and Russian circles. He thought
> that contracts would speak louder than words, and
> in this instance he wasn't completely crazy to do
> so.
>
> As for the "terror" connection, Hayes in a series
> of unrebutted articles has laid out a tranche of
> suggestive and incriminating connections, based on
> a mere fraction of the declassified documents,
> showing Iraqi Baathist involvement with jihadist
> and Bin Ladenist groups from Sudan to Afghanistan
> to Western Asia. If you choose to doubt this, you
> might want to look at the threat, neglected by the
> U.S. military, of the "Fedayeen Saddam." (See also
> Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's admirable new
> book Cobra II.) This interestingly named outfit,
> known to many of us for some time, did most of the
> serious fighting against the coalition after the
> ignominious and predictable collapse of the Iraqi
> army and the Republican Guard. Its ranks were
> heavily augmented with foreign jihadists, and from
> this para-state formation and its recruitment
> pattern, we get an idea of the way in which things
> would have gone in Iraq if it had been left alone.
> Never mind "imminent threat," if that phrase
> upsets you. How does "permanent threat" sound?
>
> So, now I come at last to my ideal war. Let us
> start with President Bush's speech to the United
> Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, which I recommend that
> you read. Contrary to innumerable sneers, he did
> not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important
> though those considerations were. He presented an
> argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq
> and said, in effect, that the international
> community had tolerated Saddam's deadly system for
> far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here's
> what should have happened. The other member states
> of the United Nations should have said: Mr.
> President, in principle you are correct. The list
> of flouted U.N. resolutions is disgracefully long.
> Law has been broken, genocide has been committed,
> other member-states have been invaded, and our own
> weapons inspectors insulted and coerced and
> cheated. Let us all collectively decide how to
> move long-suffering Iraq into the post-Saddam era.
> We shall need to consider how much to set aside to
> rebuild the Iraqi economy, how to sponsor free
> elections, how to recuperate the devastated areas
> of the marshes and Kurdistan, how to try the war
> criminals, and how many multinational forces to
> ready for this task. In the meantime?this is of
> special importance?all governments will make it
> unmistakably plain to Saddam Hussein that he can
> count on nobody to save him. All Iraqi diplomats
> outside the country, and all officers and
> officials within it, will receive the single
> message that it is time for them to switch sides
> or face the consequences. Then, when we are ready,
> we shall issue a unanimous ultimatum backed by the
> threat of overwhelming force. We call on all
> democratic forces in all countries to prepare to
> lend a hand to the Iraqi people and assist them in
> recovering from more than three decades of fascism
> and war.
>
> Not a huge amount to ask, when you think about it.
> But what did the president get instead? The threat
> of unilateral veto from Paris, Moscow, and
> Beijing. Private assurances to Saddam Hussein from
> members of the U.N. Security Council. Pharisaic
> fatuities from the United Nations'
> secretary-general, who had never had a single
> problem wheeling and dealing with Baghdad. The
> refusal to reappoint Rolf Ekeus?the only serious
> man in the U.N. inspectorate?to the job of
> invigilation. A tirade of opprobrium, accusing
> Bush of everything from an oil grab to a vendetta
> on behalf of his father to a secret subordination
> to a Jewish cabal. Platforms set up in major
> cities so that crowds could be harangued by
> hardened supporters of Milosevic and Saddam, some
> of them paid out of the oil-for-food bordello.
>
> Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the
> tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been
> living in a different world, and so could the
> people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score
> about this until the last phony pacifist has been
> strangled with the entrails of the last
> suicide-murderer.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit
> www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
