even though I don't think anybody else will.
Regardless of the outcome in Iraq, we are watching the opening moves of WWIII. Overly dramatic? Possibly, but let's consider the facts:
The divide goes far deeper than a disagreement over how to disarm Iraq. We are seeing nations focus their foreign policy around nothing more than opposition to the US. I can say without a shadow of doubt that France will oppose any US foreign policy initiative, unless their is something in it for them. They, along with their allies, will do everything in their power to reduce American power and influence in the world, regardless of the costs in human lifes and suffering. The debate over Iraq has demonstrated that quite clearly.
So, am I saying we will soon be in armed conflict with France?
Not necessarily, although it is a slight possibility. The Third World War will be fought by proxy, in places like Iraq, North Korea, or the African continent.Our interests will be opposed at every turn by those who wish to supplant us as the dominant power on the planet. As long as we maintain our advantage, they will not face us directly over a battlefield. Instead, they will fight us in the Hague, in the UN, and in the press. They will use our war against terror to arouse sentiment against us, portray us as imperialists and warmongers.
This coming global conflict is the sole reason why I've changed my mind about the UN. As long as it is a functioning world body, we need to remain in it. We must maintain our seat on the Security Council to protect our interests against those who wish us harm. Our veto will be needed repeatedly, until we are stripped of it, or the UN itself crumbles amid the stress of the two power blocs.
Can the US survive a whispering war? I have grave doubts. One of our founding principles is that power derives from the will of the people. Tyhat applies globally as well as nationally. If the majority of the world's poeples turn against the US, our power will wane, regardless of the strength of our military, our economic might, or political prestige. I'm reminded of the death of Julius Caesar, stabbed in the back by his allies, who grew to fear his power.
The real war is being fought not on the Iraqi battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of the world. We must convince them that the US is everything that we believe it to be; a bastion of liberty and freedom, a land of limitless opportunity. More importantly, we have to convince them that what makes America great is not something that only belongs to Americans, but is a state of mind open to all people in all nations. Freedom, the freedom to live, work, create, earn, think, believe, worship, and speak is the bedrock of American greatness.
Unfortunately, freedom doesn't come cheap. You have to be willing to work, to take risks, to try and fail and try again. You have to take responsibility for your life, to stop crying about what's not fair, and take care of what's there. We humans still have a strong herd instinct, and it's a lot easier to follow a guy who puts food in your belly than it is to get the food yourself. If you have to do what he says in order to eat, well, some consider that a small price to pay.
Can we win over the hearts and minds of these people? I don't know, but history is against us. But maybe America will be different. Maybe we won't succomb to the dry rot that seems to affect all democracies after a couple of centuries. But it will take a huge effort to overcome the inertia of 6 billion people.
I just don't know.
Posted by Rich at March 25, 2003 10:41 AM | TrackBackHmm, interesting perspective. World War by proxy. I pity the proxies.
Posted by: SayUncle on March 25, 2003 11:09 AMSo do I, uncle.
Of course, we do have another option. We can retire from the world, allow our global influence to lapse, and let the world take care of itself for awhile.
Posted by: rich on March 25, 2003 11:15 AMI think that would be our best bet, but I don't think we will let that happen.
Posted by: Isaac on March 25, 2003 1:05 PMI've heard theories that the cold war was a war by proxy. It was ultimately fought in places like Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
Is China the only country that supported the Taliban?
http://www.webislam.com/numeros/2001/09_01/Bush_GivesTaliban.htm
p.s. so you say that France is looking out for its economic interests, what do you think of Haliburton getting one of the first contracts to rebuild Iraq?
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
Excerpt:
But its biggest value could be that it puts Halliburton in a prime position to handle the complete refurbishment of Iraq's long-neglected oil infrastructure, which will be a plum job.
Posted by: Manish on March 26, 2003 2:17 PMThe difference is that the US did not go to war for the benefit of Haliburton, liberal propaganda notwithstanding. The difference is that Haliburton is not covering up illegal trading with Iraq, contravening UN resolutions. The difference is that Haliburton may be rebuilding Iraq, while France was re arming Iraq.
As for the canard of Bush supporting the Taliban, yes, the US gave aid to the Taliban to help encourage the Afghani people to move away from growing poppies. As Colin Powell also said while presenting the money, the US hoped that Taliban would move towards acknowledging human rights, and stop their support of terrorism.
It's interesting that you are criticizing Bush for continuing a policy started during the Clinton administration. As you may recall, we granted China "Most favored" trade status in spite of their egregious human rights record, as the Clinton administration claimed that we could influence Chinese policy better through ''engagement', rather than isolation.
Or have you forgotten that little tidbit?
In any case, humanitarian aid to reduce poppy cultivation hardly compares with sending money, weapons and mercs to help fight against the Americans.
Posted by: rich on March 26, 2003 5:21 PMI never said that I supported giving MFN status to China, and since your asking, I opposed it. I don't really consider myself a Democrat and am more than willing to say when I think they're wrong. Hell, a good portion of the Democratic establishment is for war.
So let me get this straight..France (and every other country on its sides) is opposed to war purely due to their economic interests and sinister deals. Deals that nobody has any proof of at this point but may come out at the end of an invasion.
On the other hand, America only has pure intentions and economic interests play no part in this. I was watching Moneyline where they were saying that France is the biggest supplier to Iraq and does about $600 million of business a year with Iraq. This particular Haliburton deal could be $5 billion upfront and $3 billion a year after that.
The only point that I'm trying to make is be open minded and consider that France might actually think invading Iraq is wrong. I'm not suggesting that America is in this for economic interests though I do think that it looks terrible that we handed out the first contract to Haliburton.
Posted by: Manish on March 27, 2003 12:43 AMBlaming the US for the Taliban's corruption doesn't hold water for me. The US governmentcan't read minds and they are not psychic. Do you think the US would have offered support to them if they knew or even thought this was going to happen? I think not. Poeple are much too criticle when things go wrong. They need to remember that some of these political situations are impossible to see what the outcome may be. Our nation's leaders must use their best judgement in a situation and hope they made the right call. No one will ever make all the right calls no matter how hard they think on the matter. Some things are impossible to see before hand. Bad things happen and you can't help that. It is what you do in response to the bad things that shows one's character.
P.S. I can't spell
Posted by: Isaac on March 27, 2003 12:55 AM