Re: The consequences of invasion (fwd)

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 Threehegemons@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 7/22/2003 1:27:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> bstremli@binghamton.edu writes:

> What are the alternatives?  What has been
> discussed by no one as yet, as far as I know, is the likelihood of a UN
> resolution which will replace US troops with international peacekeepers,
> and further, the likelihood that such an outcome will be successful in
> stabilizing the situation.  Perhaps if Iraqis are granted self-government
> now, and peacekeepers are introduced into sensitive and border areas, the
> mess precipitated by Bush can be contained and gradually cleaned up.
> Failing that, I don't see much of a future for a
> UN-administered
> operation, either.

>T. Ganesh made such a claim a couple of days ago.  I don't think its very
plausible.  UN peacekeepers in the narrow sense are just about out of the
question--they enter only if there has been a negotiated cease-fire, which
is clearly not the case here.  The UN might be able to create an ad-hoc
coalition--India, Russia, France, etc to send troops, but none of those
countries (who would play a role in shaping UN policy) want much to be in
Iraq, and would face considerable political costs if they should decide to
do so.  Furthermore, while the New York Times is recommending turning this
over to the UN, I don't think the hawks are at all interested in doing so.
They would dread doing so on principle; perhaps also some of the claims of
the anti-war movement that the US has specific agendas for post-war Iraq
(dollar friendly, Israel friendly, etc) are true and the US does not want
to discard that agenda.  Furthermore, Kofi Annan is calling for the US
involvement in Liberia, and the hawks, never sympathetic to such missions
and worried about the overextension of the US army as things stand, are
trying to nix such an option.  Would US involvement in Liberia
(increasingly looking like a very messy situation) be part of a quid pro
quo for UN involvement in Iraq?>

I'm confused at this point as to which claim you find implausible.  If
the reference is to turning Iraq over to the UN, then I agree - I
expressed skepticism regarding such an outcome in my introduction to the
article.  It seems that the Bush administration would do so only in the
direst straits, with no other option available.  And it is equally
unlikely that India (much less France, Germany or Russia) will
agree to station thousands of troops in Iraq.  Putting Liberia into this
equation is likewise very difficult.  But the bottom line is the potential
consequences of a US withdrawal, on which I think the editorial is
correct.  The Bush administration is trying to rope other countries into
contributing cannon fodder to save their bacon in a difficult situation.
So far, there are very few takers.  What to do?  One answer was offered by
yesterday's events - an attempt to resolve the problem through military
means.  The pundits are hopeful that this will pacify the Iraqi insurgency
in the long-term (though I have not heard any mention as yet of the fact
that the attack took place 5 days prior to a scheduled launch of a
full-scale guerrilla war by Saddam, as reported by AsiaTimes).  Moreover,
Bush has been sabre-rattling at Iran and Syria once again.  The
indications seem to be that the US will/will be forced to use military
muscle to bring the region (and perhaps other regions) under control.
Will it acquire popular support for doing this?  It looks unlikely at this
point, but let's not forget that the propaganda campaign to sell more wars
has not yet begun, and that Bush's electoral warchest dwarfs those of all
Democratic rivals.

-- 
Boris Stremlin
bstremli@binghamton.edu