(no subject)

[xatalantax]

I'm interested to hear what people think of these recommended courses of action for after the fighting is over:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri032403.asp

I don't think much of the recommendation about France, Germany, and Russia, but at this point, at least, that is a reaction of scorn rather than considered judgment. I haven't thought about what would actually be best in the end.

Comments

[egofood.livejournal.com]

Don't talk about American occupation, even though it will be necessary to avoid reprisals and ethnic cleansing. Check. See also the point about not installing an interim government and declaring an amnesty. But get the Iraqis working on that new constitution ASAP and keep highlighting that.

Keep the Turks and the Iranians out of Iraq. Check. The Turks more than the Iranians because border clashes with them could help weaken the mullahs in Tehran enough for the Iranian people to revolt. Don't invade Iran though. For this reason Turkey will probably be a bigger threat than Iran. Keeping the Kurds from declaring independence can help here and also help reshape Iraq. The Kurds already have a good start on democracy, it would be a very good thing to tie them to the rest of Iraq, probably as a federal republic of 3 or 4 united states of Iraq.

The White House has already made a point that the Food for Oil program is run by the UN and that they see no reason to change that. Of course with a new regime the sanctions will disappear so the Food for Oil program will shift to a humanitarian aid program.

Of course we punish France, Germany, Russia, and China. Though we don't have to do it by cutting them out of the bidding for reconstruction contracts. (Not like they would probably be able to submit the winning bids anyway.) First off we punish Germany (and Russia) by shifting our European basing eastward. We punish France by getting more involved in Africa via the President's announced AIDS programs and using that to help de-colonize France. We punish China by working on improving our relations with India (Pakistan will feel compelled to improve their relations as well being sandwiched between India and a now-friendly Afghanistan) and by inquiring about terrorist networks in Tibet. And we punish Russia (and China) by going to Mars.

Yep, keep Iraq within the Arab League, OPEC, etc. We want them to influence the other regimes in the region.

Wipe out the current Iraqi military leadership which as with all dictatorships concentrates power and responsibilty to the small corps of loyalty at the top. The rest of the military needs to be allowed to develop a sense of pride and duty.

As for the UN, the only resolution to introduce is the one for lifting the sanctions and declaring the 17 other UNSC resolutions as being fulfilled. And that is when you turn over the humanitarian relief efforts to the UN. Basically an "OK, we did the job you couldn't do, let's see if you can handle something simplisme."

[cris.livejournal.com]

Of course we punish France, Germany, Russia, and China. Though we don't have to do it by cutting them out of the bidding for reconstruction contracts. (Not like they would probably be able to submit the winning bids anyway.)

I wouldn't be so hasty in that judgement. Siemens AG has a fair amount of experience with development and construction projects in places like Uzbekistan and Sudan, so I wouldn't be surprised if their bids would be competitive. Besides, opening the bidding process up to firms like British Petroleum and Sweden's ABB can only be helpful.

First off we punish Germany (and Russia) by shifting our European basing eastward.

and thus expose German security to the dangers of an invasion from Denmark?

We punish France by getting more involved in Africa via the President's announced AIDS programs and using that to help de-colonize France.

Right, because France hasn't done anything about AIDS in Africa.

We punish China by working on improving our relations with India (Pakistan will feel compelled to improve their relations as well being sandwiched between India and a now-friendly Afghanistan)

Musharraf is already quite aware of the need to be America's partner, it's his people that you need to impress. And the worst way to do that is to back them up against a wall. Though, you're on a good track by talking about making Afghanistan friendlier

and by inquiring about terrorist networks in Tibet.

??? do you have anything that actually backs this up? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity, not sarcasm, particularly since Tibet's history of non-violence and their Buddhist faith makes them an unlikely shelter for al-Qaeda

And we punish Russia (and China) by going to Mars.

and give them a wink and a smile on Chechnya, right?

apologies if that came off as overly harsh, but talking about "punishment" and almost encouraging diplomacy-via-humiliation is rather petty and counter-productive. much of the international resistance to America's war on Iraq is because of anxiety over American unilateralism ... you can defuse a lot of this simply by allowing more nations to cooperate with you and valuing the contributions that they can make and the differences that they hold, rather than belittling them for disagreeing with you.

atalanta, I pretty much agree with most of the points that's laid out in that article, and if you'll recall I had a lot of the issues with the distinct lack of a reconstruction plan prior to the start of the war. I think that one thing I would add is to expand the UN's role beyond first aid and medical care. An interim peacekeeping regime under UN auspices would be far less controversial than a military occupation (and is also why I have and still do argue for a multilateral approach to this issue) and, like Kosovo, could aid in the transition to democracy.

[miss-manners.livejournal.com]

you can defuse a lot of this simply by allowing more nations to cooperate with you and valuing the contributions that they can make and the differences that they hold

My only question is how does one do that when one of the major players is openly working against you reflexively France working against the US and/or Britain while claiming to be their friends is nothing new.

Or when, by refusing to take the short end of the stick, you are declared to be not cooperating. Kyoto's baseline year was choosen such that the US was the only country facing cuts in CO2 emissions among the top three economies and the most drastic in the top ten: Japan as just off their last economic peak so had maximized emissions, Germany's baseline included all the highly poluting industry from just integrated East Germany, and the US was at the bottom of its last recession. As a result, Germany got more than required just by modernizing the East, Japan was well below their target due to their moribund economy, and the US economy, in the middle of recent growth, was looking at sever cuts. While you can argue given the reasoning that was fair politically telling one country they have to cut while the rest of the world can grow is only going to engender the response we got first in the US Senate and then with the Bush Administration.

Yet today when we ask for cooperation in North Korea we get told we need to do it alone.

Has the US attitude in the past years damaged relations? Sure, but that US attitude didn't grow in a vacuum. A lot of Americans, especially those whose overseas experience is from the military (which constitutes a huge part of Bush's base), have gotten their fill of a world that expects us to do what they want while they spit on us and we protect them (travel overseas as a serviceman is a vastly different experience than that of a tourist), especially with other industrialized countries (I got better treatment in countries with real beefs like Columbia and Venezula than in Korea, France, or Italy). It was going to boil over sooner or later. I suspect a lot of us would be a lot less strident about backing Bush in telling the world to go to hell if some of those arguing the world's case for the ugly American with no redeeming features would look at the ugly European who has redeeming features as well.

Right, because France hasn't done anything about AIDS in Africa.

If France's AIDS work in African trumps their ongoing rape of the continent then why doesn't our economic neglect balance our AIDS neglect, not to mention our attempt to feed people (and provide the stability to do so? This is a prime example of what I'm talking about above. The American deaths chronicled in Blackhawk Down were part of an operation whose's larger objective was feeding starving Africans. The military incidents were related to stopping people who were killing UN relief workers and stealing food. So, America spills blood to feed Africans and we're evil and imperialistic and wrong because we didn't do enough about AIDS. Meanwhile, France uses its military to continued looting the Ivory Coast but it's AIDS work cancel that.

And then we're supposed to understand that we're hated.

[cris.livejournal.com]

My only question is how does one do that when one of the major players is openly working against you reflexively France working against the US and/or Britain while claiming to be their friends is nothing new.

you do this by appealing to the people behind the administration. The French as a people probably did not want Saddam armed, nor would they probably care that much about the lost oil contracts -- they do, however, care about America's hegemonic presence and what it may imply for a waning European influence. Chirac, as an opportunist, has capitalized on that, and seeking to punish the French either by humiliating or excluding them isn't going to assuage those anxieties.

Disapproval for the antics of statesmen can be resolved as it has always been resolved, in the private face-to-face interactions that has always characterized diplomacy. You gain additional leverage by shifting public opinion against them, and you don't do this by alienating their population.

The nuanced view of trying to punish the regime without punishing the people is something that will prove to be valuable beyond this war.

With your whole issue with the duality of Americans being asked for help and being spat on. People have a right to be proud of their nation, but may not necessarily be proud of their politicians. Speaking as a Filipino, and as someone whose best friend is Korean -- many nations are still dealing with the identity issues of post-WWII liberation/decolonization, and part of that manifests itself in a sense of nationalism that rejects any sort of overt foreign military presence (regardless of how necessary that presence may be) because it's seen by a certain segment of the population as an inherent failure of the nation. And, even in this case, it's better to address the dignity of the people who aren't spitting on you than lecture the nation as a whole on their ungratefulness.

If France's AIDS work in African trumps their ongoing rape of the continent then why doesn't our economic neglect balance our AIDS neglect, not to mention our attempt to feed people (and provide the stability to do so? This is a prime example of what I'm talking about above. The American deaths chronicled in Blackhawk Down were part of an operation whose's larger objective was feeding starving Africans. The military incidents were related to stopping people who were killing UN relief workers and stealing food. So, America spills blood to feed Africans and we're evil and imperialistic and wrong because we didn't do enough about AIDS. Meanwhile, France uses its military to continued looting the Ivory Coast but it's AIDS work cancel that.

I'm well aware that France hasn't been far from altruistic in its treatment of Africa, but then, so has the US. And I think that a new commitment to AIDS by the US is commendable, but just a single step in undoing a legacy of exploitation and its arrogant to think that this is some new, unique, heroic effort that will trump French influence.

Besides, the impression I got was that France was called in to stop the looting perpetrated by military groups and broker peace in the Ivory Coast. If that's erroneous, and if the French are actually abusing their position, do correct me.

Also, I favored the American intervention in Somalia, and thought that it was serious step backward to see the troops pull out so soon.

[miss-manners.livejournal.com]

The nuanced view of trying to punish the regime without punishing the people is something that will prove to be valuable beyond this war.

And I'm all for it...see some of my other opinions on this thread...by bringing in France post-war we embarass the government doing us more long term good than any offical embargo...although I'm keeping my Freedom Fries :)

As far as the duality, the amazing thing is the more developed the country and more educated the populace (ie, the ones who should have the more nuanced understanding) are the most offensive about it. Korea, Italy, Germany, and France are, between personal experience and reports of friends in the military, are the worst. Nations with real complaints (my biggest experience of that was Panama) show it less and have many more people supportive of US troops.

that France was called in to stop the looting perpetrated by military groups and broker peace in the Ivory Coast

That's true as far as it goes, but consider:

1. Well over 75% of assets in the country are French owned and French firms are the primary employers (ie, only the government decolonized).
2. The French had hand picked their successor to the despot replaced in late 90s elections.
3. Their choice lost.
4. The rebels and military forces causing the problems were backing the losing candidate.
5. The French plan pushed on the current government included given a large portfolio in the government to the rebel's choosen leader (who just happened to be the choice of the French in the first place).

No one has proven French involvement in the uprising, but it smells bad. At the very least they're exploiting their (non-UN sanctioned) intervention for their commerical interests at least as much as a pure Oil War on the US part would.

[cris.livejournal.com]

And I'm all for it...see some of my other opinions on this thread...by bringing in France post-war we embarass the government doing us more long term good than any offical embargo...although I'm keeping my Freedom Fries :)

And I commend your troops' struggle to preserve your right to call them that ;) I'm also curious to see if the Congressional cafeterias might be offering Russian dressing ...

As far as the duality, the amazing thing is the more developed the country and more educated the populace (ie, the ones who should have the more nuanced understanding) are the most offensive about it. Korea, Italy, Germany, and France are, between personal experience and reports of friends in the military, are the worst. Nations with real complaints (my biggest experience of that was Panama) show it less and have many more people supportive of US troops.

I am guessing here, but I imagine that discrepancy is also related to the relative ages of the nations you were referring to. Korea, Italy, Germany and France have a national image based on centuries of culture, and have national mythologies that prize a certain sense of identity (Dan-gun myth, Imperial Rome, the Volk, Zee French 'nuff said) and education only serves to reinforce that perception. The nations of Latin America and South America though, still have large components of their identity tied up with being a colony, and when not a colony, being a part of the Monroe Doctrine -- so in a certain way, living under the protection of an American military is more ingrained in their point-of-view. (which can also describe the perceptions of Filipinos who, in polls, lead all other nations in their love for the US, but individually struggle with this postcolonial teenage angst thing of trying to find a future that can be independent of American influence)

[egofood.livejournal.com]

If Siemans AG can win the bid, more's the better for the Iraqis. Assuming their work is up to snuff.

Shifting our bases out of Germany shifts a lot of money that gets spent locally. Meanwhile we develop closer relations with the former Warsaw Pact nations which diminishes Russia's sphere of influence.

France's efforts in Africa are represented by Algerian terrorists, civil war in Cote D'Ivoire, and the coddling of Robert Mugabe whose government has gone on another killing and torture spree this past week.

India is far more populous, much more democratic, and economically closer to us than Pakistan. While we do not want to entirely abandon one of our Cold War allies (particularly a now-nuclear ally), the Cold War is over and it is well past time to start attending to those lesser evils we chose in order to defeat the greater evil. With a friendly Afghanistan now emerging, working on building our relations with India will not only give the Chinese headaches but it will help encourage Pakistan to keep up with the regional Joneses.

The Tibet question is meant to be rhetorically asked of the Chinese, as in "So, Chairman Hu, just what is the name of the terrorist network you are stamping out in Tibet?" At least the Russians can point to al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Chechnya.

"American unilateralism" is essentially a whine that America should have the audacity to believe it has national interests, unlike say France or Russia or China. It's an absurd argument and should politely be dismissed as such.

Meanwhile you want the UN to administer a post-war Iraq? Have you not heard about the UN's record in Srebenrica (http://www.hrw.org/summaries/s.bosnia9510.html) both before and after (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/0729un.htm) US involvement? The UN has sanctioned 2 wars, and it blanched at finishing either of them. It is a body composed mostly of dictatorships punching above their weight to protect their own. Libya currently chairs the Human Rights Commission, Iran then Iraq are slated to chair the Committee on Disarmament. They have demonstrated no ability to govern and should not be given yet more chances to prove their deadly incompetence. Let them stick to the non-governmental programs they actually have a chance of succeeding at.

[cris.livejournal.com]

France's efforts in Africa are represented by Algerian terrorists, civil war in Cote D'Ivoire, and the coddling of Robert Mugabe whose government has gone on another killing and torture spree this past week.

and I'm sure that the US and UK have never supported petty dictators, pursued policies that inadvertently bred terrorists, or meddled in any civil wars. pot, kettle ...

With a friendly Afghanistan now emerging, working on building our relations with India will not only give the Chinese headaches but it will help encourage Pakistan to keep up with the regional Joneses.

how?

The Tibet question is meant to be rhetorically asked of the Chinese, as in "So, Chairman Hu, just what is the name of the terrorist network you are stamping out in Tibet?" At least the Russians can point to al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Chechnya.

And lose the cheapest source of manufacturing labor the world has ever seen? Weren't you just talking about the lesser of two evils?

"American unilateralism" is essentially a whine that America should have the audacity to believe it has national interests, unlike say France or Russia or China.

or Canada or India or The Vatican or Ireland or Mexico or South Africa ... but then, I'm sure that they're all evil regimes that will be punished for their disobedience in due time.

Meanwhile you want the UN to administer a post-war Iraq? Have you not heard about the UN's record in Srebenrica both before and after US involvement? The UN has sanctioned 2 wars, and it blanched at finishing either of them. It is a body composed mostly of dictatorships punching above their weight to protect their own.

I'm quite familiar with the UN's record in the Balkans, thanks ... that's part of the reason why I was talking about using them post conflict. They did a pretty good job in Cambodia and Sierra Leone. Besides folks who play the "Libya as Chair of Human Rights" card obviously don't know a thing about UN politics. The chairmanship of committees and commissions are pretty much symbolic affairs -- all they control is when debates happen and how they're moderated. They can't control the group's agenda. Everything that matters in the UN happens in The Security Council where the number of folks with veto control are four democracies and one communist regime.

oh, and I'd rather base the UN's records on the number of wars that it may have prevented, rather than the number of wars that it's started. As a matter of fact, I'd be quite leery of any international group that prides itself on the number of wars that it has sanctioned.

[egofood.livejournal.com]

The link about Angola and Uganda refers to U.S. activity during the Cold War. We chose the lesser evil to defeat the greater evil. Given the millions slaughtered by totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, Uganda, etc. we made the right choice. (Assuming finishing off the Soviet Union at the end of WW2 was not an option.) If you are going to damn the U.S. for supporting new dictatorships keep it in the post-Cold War period and I'll probably agree with you. Unless you keep basing your arguments on leftist blame-the-Jews authors. As for the bombing in Sudan, those of us on the right have often pointed to Clinton's bombing of that aspirin factory as one of his many disgraces. That the Senate Republicans refused to convict him after his impeachment is a shameful mark upon them as well. Though not as shameful as the Democrats that put party above all else and praised Clinton's shift in U.S. policy towards Iraq to regime change in 1998 but now criticise actually achieving that policy.

The lesser of two evils in defeating the greater evil. It's defeated. Time to take care of those lesser evils. Pay attention.

You would have us smile and say "Thank you, may we have another" when other nations diplomatically spit in our faces. Screw that. It is precisely those displays of fecklessness that encouraged ever greater terrorist attacks.

The UN sex slave ring was post-combat. And the reason chairmanships are symbolic is precisely why the UN is not a governing body. It's entirely symbolic because that is all that it can be. It's a systemic condition.

Cambodia was the unilateral doing of Viet Nam. Sierra Leone was the work of that nation's neighbors. The UN had nothing to do with it. They came in after the fact to document the aftermath. Likewise with the ouster of Idi Amin from Uganda.

From your far left sourcings it's pretty obvious we will never agree.

[cris.livejournal.com]

The link about Angola and Uganda refers to U.S. activity during the Cold War.

well, then I could point you to the post Cold War militarization of Africa which, you'll be glad to hear, started under Clinton though continues under Bush. But that's beside the point, which originally was rebutting your original assertion that the US might hold some moral trump card against France in Africa, when in fact, I'd say that every major power has dirtied their hands in this continent, and to use something like humanitarian assistance for AIDS as a device to spite another European nation is petty and insulting to the folks you want to help.

You would have us smile and say "Thank you, may we have another" when other nations diplomatically spit in our faces. Screw that. It is precisely those displays of fecklessness that encouraged ever greater terrorist attacks.

I think Clinton did a great disservice to your military prowess by pulling out of Somalia prematurely and in bombing the wrong targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. However, one shouldn't make the logical error of equating an absence of military will with a distaste for political rudeness.

The UN sex slave ring was post-combat.

and, while deplorable and scandalous and hopefully just an isolated incident, I still wonder what this has to do with the UN's possible role in postwar Iraq? Should the US armed forces be similarly discredited because of Tailhook?

And the reason chairmanships are symbolic is precisely why the UN is not a governing body. It's entirely symbolic because that is all that it can be. It's a systemic condition.

you're quite right. The UN isn't a governing body, but it was intentionally designed towards being unable to tell nations what to do. It was designed to encourage cooperation and generate consensus because that's the only political method for getting sovereign states to agree on international law short of coercion. If you can show me how the US acting solely in its own self-interest can foster this sense of cooperation, I'd like to hear it.

Cambodia was the unilateral doing of Viet Nam. Sierra Leone was the work of that nation's neighbors. The UN had nothing to do with it. They came in after the fact to document the aftermath. Likewise with the ouster of Idi Amin from Uganda.

The UN went in to Cambodia after the government that Viet Name installed was embroiled in a civil war with a Khmer Rouge force backed by China and the US, and Australia led a UN peacekeeping force to bring both sides to the negotiating table and see the country towards a peaceful democratic transition. The Sierra Leone mission also fulfills a similar purpose in monitoring the ceasefire between government and rebel forces and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which Mr. Taheri recommended as one of his points in the article. In both of these cases, the UN has played a vital role in enforcing the peace in a post-conflict zone and helping it find its own way on the road towards a democratic transition. Is that what one is looking for in a post-war Iraq?

Should I ask you to pay attention as well?