War with Iraq

With Bush strongly pushing for war, and the American press presenting primarily a supportive view, here's a broader perspective from around the world.

Will war make the world safer? Here's examples of commentary taken from the English-language world press, which while generally pro-American is not supportive of this particular war.

Rogue states are being rewarded for power. North Korea has nuclear weapons and the means to destroy the capital and population centers of South Korea. The US is not pushing for a military solution. Iraq does not yet have nuclear weapons and will be invaded by the US. The message resonating in the developing world press is that it is best to develop a strong threat quickly.

The US policies are causing shifts in government to extremists. In countries that might perceive themselves to be targets of the US, governments have shifted to nationalistic positions, and the power of extremists has increased. There is less room for compromise. This is analogous to the overbearing US policy in Iran which unwittingly caused the birth of the Islamic fanaticism.

Bush is viewed as an extremist. Caricatures and adjectives, even in pro-USA countries such as UK and India, describe him as a "cowboy". There is great concern that he is not very bright, is acting emotionally, and is reckless. There is fear that his ignorance and arrogance will cause great harm. The US rejection of the Geneva protocols for treatment of prisoners and incarceration in Cuba was chilling to the world.

Containment is working in Iraq. This view is quite different from that of the US press, but states that Saddam is far from reckless, and that containment is working. He invaded Iran only after his own leaders were assassinated, and invaded Kuwait only when he interpreted Bush Sr's signals that that the US would not object. There have been no new discoveries of weapons of mass destruction (even acknowledging Iraq is not fully cooperating, it is still remarkable that absolutely no new evidence of developing weapons has been found). No countries support Saddam, but many believe that containment is working fine and do not find Bush's assertions without evidence to be compelling. All of Iraq's neighbors are much less fearful of Iraq, weakened by the devastating first Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. For example, Turkey is opposed to a war in Iraq despite a promised $30B. That says something for Turkey's own concern.

There is no material interference with UN inspections. While the US press portrayed the last Blix UN inspector's report as confirming violations, the international press reported the opposite conclusion. Looking at the text of the report (it is online), you will see that the latest report has dropped most of the language about obstruction, cites increased cooperation, and while saying there is still some interference it says the progress is encouraging. Blix's report is not consistent with Bush's statements. The world is hearing a very different story than Americans are, and does not understand why Bush is still pushing so hard for war when it appears that inspections are working.

Al Queda has no ties to Iraq. Unnoticed in the US press, the world community still waits for the ties between Al Queda and Iraq. Despite a year of searching, there aren't any. The only references were initially some supposed meetings, but the US even dropped reference to those. Instead, Osama calls Saddam an infidel and cites Iraq as an example of a secular government that must be overthrown and replaced with an Islamic government. In the latest Osama tape, he called for all Iraqis to stand up and fight against the Americans, and Bush proclaimed that as proof that Osama and Saddam are tied together. In the same tape he reiterated that Saddam is an infidel --and needs to be replaced by an Islamic government. (Which may indeed be the outcome if the US ousts Saddam and allows a free election.) Bush has convinced the American people that invading Iraq is somehow related to Al Queda and Sep 11, when the rest of the world sees no connection.

Our allies trust us less now. During a crisis it is critical that everyone not question each other's motives and pulls together for a common cause. Unfortunately, Bush has caused Europe to be much more suspicious of his motives. He lacks the usual delicacy of a politician, and is very willing to appear to act unilaterally. He unilaterally withdrew from the ABM treaty and the Kyoto protocol without negotiating agreeable solutions. He threatens to ignore the UN Security Council and NATO. He rejects the International Criminal Court. Because Bush acts so strongly unilaterally, even our allies now question his motives, decreasing the effectiveness of our alliances.

Bush makes it difficult for allies to support us. His public dressing-down of Germany's leader makes it politically difficult for the two to talk privately and find common ground. His statements that he will ignore input from other countries gives their leaders little ground to compromise between their own domestic needs and providing support.

Bush is creating a fertile ground for new terrorists. The impact of Bush's strong words (such as "crusade") inflames much of the Islamic world. The world press reports that even moderate countries like Indonesia are now facing suddenly strong extremists. Bush makes it very easy for zealots to target him, and foster hatred in youth. The US seems ready to follow the failed Israeli example of creating new terrorists. (Remember, most of the world is not as strongly pro-Israeli as the US, so world press generally regards Israeli policies as failed.)

Calling for a regime change in an enemy is now okay. Many countries like the idea of changing the government of their enemy! I see commentaries in Arab, Israeli and even Indian newspapers claiming that now the world will see that their specific country also has a terrorist enemy and they too can now actively foster its overthrow. There is a belief that by supporting the US in overthrowing Saddam, there will be support for their own regional wars to overthrow neighbors. If the US invades Iraq, expect India to push for regime change in Pakistan, and on and on.... The concept that one country, if strong enough militarily, can overthrow the government of another sets an incredibly destabilizing precedent for the world.

The US will go it alone. (This commentary came from US professors, but was published abroad and not picked up in the US press.) The first gulf war cost $50-100 billion. The second war will cost the same or more. However, the first war did not cost the US a penny. It was completely funded by the Saudis, Kuwaitis and Japanese. In fact, the influx of money to the defense establishment paid for the development of the next round of armaments, such as patriot missiles and cruise missiles. This war has no such support. The entire cost will be born by the US taxpayer, and in fact we have to promise massive aid to allies in order to secure their support. At a time of looming budget deficits and a sluggish economy this is weakening the US, reducing its ability to respond to future threats.

These views are taken from the world press. Do they reflect a world made safer by Bush? You can see why the world seems to have a different view than America.

Sadly, I also see increasing irrational bashing of Europe (especially France) in US papers and corresponding bashing of US and UK in European papers. This is whipping up animosity on both sides, which is very dangerous. Hatred is the easiest and most powerful emotion to generate, and on our travels we have seen the devastating effects it has when politicians or newspapers fan the flames for their own purposes. Remember how quickly the crowd became agitated in the Irish pub? We all must remain especially vigilant and cautious at this time to ensure that we are not caught up in war fever. If history proves anything, it is that humans are too easily led to war.