From Big Ennis to Little Ennis:
Gulf War l to Gulf War ll to North Korea
May 12, 2003
R L Norman
JMKeynes@SecularStagnation.Com
Officials said the impetus for the overhaul [removal of Jay Garner, the retired
lieutenant genera in charge of Iraqi reconstruction] stems in part from urgent
warnings that the escalating violence and a breakdown of civil order are already
paralyzing the effort to rebuild Iraq. "Unless we do something in the near
future, it is likely to blow up in our face," one official said. [my emphasis
]
'U.S. Overhauls Administration to Govern Iraq'
Patrick E. Tyler And Edmund L. Andrews, The New York Times, May 12, 2003
"The United States should declare victory [in Vietnam] and get out."
A popular view on Vietnam policy, during the Vietnam War
Senator George Aiken, (R-Vt)
"The best visits are the shortest."
Sidney Greenstreet as the Fat Man in The Maltese Falcon, 1941
Roh [South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun] told reporters on Sunday he and Bush
were largely in agreement that North Korea must abandon its nuclear ambitions...But
he acknowledged there were differences of opinion on how to stop the North.
The United States says it is seeking a diplomatic resolution but refuses to
rule out a military option against Pyongyang, while Roh says that is unthinkable
because of the damage it would cause in South Korea. [my emphasis ]
'S.Korea's Roh Says North Must Halt Nuclear Drive'
Reuters, May 12, 2003
______________________________________________________________
The above title refers to characters from the Smokey and the Bandit movies with Burt Reynolds, Sally Fields and Jerry Reed. It was suggested to me by a Southern writer during April, referring to George Bush (Sr.) and George Bush (Jr.). Despite polls showing a lot of support for George Bush and the Iraq War, my visit to the South in April, showed very few people willing to privately express much support for the war and a number of people with deep concerns, who might otherwise have been thought of as conservative. Big Ennis and Little Ennis were usually the source of the Bandit's money for his hard-driving escapades, but seldom had much to do with the dirty work. In this instance, the analogy works partially, although it might be said for George Bush Sr, that he did actually get his hands dirty flying a plane in World War ll and could have been killed. His direction of the first Gulf War was at least minimally competent, while Bush Jr's diplomacy has been very weak.
Von Clauswitz and the Role of War in Diplomacy
Karl von Clauswitz wrote that war was an extension of politics. A logical corollary to that idea is that after a war, certainly after a largely successful war; the diplomatic situation of the winner should be improved. At a minimum, that diplomatic situation should remain no worse than before the war. In the case of Mr. Bush's recent largely successful war in Iraq, it is difficult to say that the United States has even 'broken even' in the diplomatic world. With the United States more or less in charge of the major cities in Iraq, but with a substantial number of Baathist Party members on the run or underground; a pool of unconventional pro-Saddam fighters remains, possibly with a large amount of American dollars. With Saddam having wrapped himself in the flags of both Arab secular nationalism and of Islamic religion, any new fighting in Iraq might well draw upon the dissatisfied from both the Baathists and from the religious areas of the country.
Either dead or alive, Saddam may join the Middle Eastern pantheon with bin Laden as a hero of the Arab fight against the West. From direct personal losses in the war, local dissatisfaction may lead to a more supportive environment for attacks against American occupation forces. This may prevent the establishment of even a nominally democratic government in Baghdad. Finally, American-occupied Iraq has few friendly governments in the larger Middle East and in its immediate neighborhood, no friends at all, making the possibility of war against either Iran or Syria more likely over the medium term. How any of this might improve America's diplomatic situation is beyond rational thought.
You Killed my Son, Now Don't Stay Too Long
Dissatisfaction with the United State's occupation is guaranteed and may come from a number of areas. Each Iraq military casualty probably had one or more surviving family members and friends as well. Many, perhaps most members of the general Iraqi army, were forced conscripts. These 'soldiers' had little or no choice in their participation in the fight with the United States. The United States may well have killed tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of these conscripts. Since Iraq has a population in the 20 million range, it is easily possible that every one in Iraq either knew someone killed by the United States, or knew someone who knew someone. There may not be as many as 'six degrees of separation' in Iraq.
This means that the Iraqi people en masse may slowly decide that this war was simply not worth the cost in lives to their people, whatever the excesses committed by Saddam. Having Saddam out of power, but at the cost of one's Father or child, is not likely to be seen by average Iraqis as a cost worth paying. And this attitude could well be replicated among the 130 or so American families who have also lost a family member in this war. This evolving attitude may not commit average Iraqis to direct action against our occupation forces, but it will create a fertile ground for those few who will attack Americans. It is with the 'sea' of supporters which guerilla fighters depend for their survival
A Tough Neighborhood for Nation Building
Even in the absence of significant domestic Iraqi opposition, the American force in Iraq is relatively small for the job of restoring order and establishing some version of a democratic government in perhaps 18 months. America General Wallace, who was roundly criticized for his statements about the number of soldiers likely to be needed, noted this situation recently. To the East sits Iran, a country with which United States has had no official diplomatic relations since about 1978. To the East sits the other Baathist state, Syria, which has tried to be somewhat helpful in the war on Al Qaeda, but which has been verbally attacked in wording similar to that so recently applied to Saddam's former Baathist state in Iraq. The most recent U. S. statements have been less harsh towards Syria, but actual American intent towards Syria remains opaque. Syria is ruled by the son of long time dictator, Hafez el Asad; who recently died of natural causes.
While Syria is hardly the poster child for Middle Eastern democracy, as brutal dictatorships go in the area, it has some redeeming qualities. For instance, there seems to be a surviving temple of older Jews in Damascus, who wish to remain in Syria. Within the north of Iraq itself, sits a large number of Kurds, probably all of which are looking forward to the new Kurdish state, if not next month or next year, then someday. The failure to establish a fairly strong central government, which is also fairly democratic, might easily feed into some version of a Kurdish mini-state. The degree of that mini-state's autonomy would be the deciding factor in Turkey's willingness to keep its military out of northern Iraq.
Thus even 250 thousand soldiers may be spread very thin in the occupation of this country, which has about as much area as Texas or California, although much of it is less then hospitable. The natural question is whether or not Bush intends to direct the American forces into Syria or Iran next. This is not simply a question of whether or not Bush believes this further war to be useful in his Middle Eastern 'strategy', but whether or not the American military position in Iraq is actually stable in the presence of so many hostile states. While none of these states are likely to directly attack the Americans in Iraq, both Iran and Syria have supported various terrorist or quasi-terrorist groups for many years. America intervened in Lebanon in 1982, to prevent the military leader of Israel, Ariel Sharon, from destroying Beirut in his criminal, mad war on Lebanon. After having slowed down Sharon and attempting to reestablish some semblance of order, we had to leave Lebanon. A Marine barracks was car bombed, resulting in about 241 casualties and after than, America began decamping.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: Casus Belli [Cause for War]?
The supposed primary reason for the war according to the Bush administration recently, was the presence of significant stockpiles of various chemical and biological weapons, the 'weapons of mass destruction' or WMD; and the seeming willingness of Saddam to either use them himself or to give them to terrorists like Al Qaeda. Well, so far, the United States has found very little of the WMD and while Saddam undoubtedly must have had some such weapons, clearly either he had too few to make a difference in the recent war or he probably would have used them. Alternatively, Saddam may have had had enough such WMD to be useful in slowing down the United States, but he simply chose the strategy of going into hiding and trying to outwait the occupation and maybe live to rule another day. The United States is notorious for having a short memory in these matters. The last possibility is that for a series of reasons, Saddam simply had too few such weapons with which to fight and that George Bush's several-month WMD drumbeat was simply not true. It would not have been the first time in which Bush either did not know the truth in a matter or refused to express the truth. Getting his political way is the important factor. Bush seems to believe that the truth in any given matter is irrelevant.
This last possibility could be very damaging to the international credibility of the United States, for either it would seem that Bush started a war with false pretences while knowing that Saddam had few WMDs or he started a war without the knowledge for which he was claiming. Either way, the United States looks poorly in the eyes of world opinion and whether or not Bush believes that world opinion matters- it matters. The days of a world largely informed by American media, which almost all have become largely extensions of the Bush administration after the bombing of Baghdad started; are over. The Arab world has its own media now and very little of it likes the United States on its best days. On an average day, the United States is probably compared to Nazi Germany, by many such Arab media commentators.
Conclusions: From Baghdad to Pyongyang
Such a generally poor Middle Easter diplomatic environment could easily lead to more American casualties and more American isolation from the rest of the world as well. American soldiers have never been led by a president less prepared for international leadership, while the present international situation requires the best prepared of presidents, simply for the United States to survive. As the global economy continues to stagnate and as SARS continues to frighten more and more people, Bush's little war may begin to be seen by larger and larger numbers of Americans for what its was, an unnecessary use of our military services and a waste of at least $100 billion dollars; for which America may expect very little positive return and for which the problems with terror may not only not be improved, but may actually worsen.
And if North Korea 'learns' from this war, that only nuclear weapons may restrain Bush's war machine, then war on the Korean peninsula may be moving forwards, however slowly. War in Korea this time may be nuclear and if it occurs, it will have been largely because George W. Bush let his big mouth overload the United State's military capacity. If the United States begins in 2003 the same type of military build up in South Korea as in the Arabian Peninsula in 2002, Kim Jong-il may simply start war, preferring to destroy South Korea in a first strike, along with some large number of America's 37,000 soldiers there.
Of course there is a fair possibility that the South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun may soon simply ask for the removal of the American soldiers, preferring to risk a 'Finlandization' in South Korea to the insanity of George W. Bush's foreign policy. If America leaves the Korean Peninsula, North Korea might be less inclined to attack. Afterall, Finland survived the Cold War in very good shape. Roh's current trip to the United States is being painted by all sides as in general agreement with Bush, but what will occur if Bush continues to present a hard line against North Korea is totally unknowable at this time. 'Finlandization' is a distinct possibility.
Thus Bush may accomplish in South Korea what 50 years of threats by North Korea never did, the removal of America from the Korean Peninsula. This in turn may make Japan more nervous and may lead to an increased militarization of Japan; in turn making China more nervous, etc. At some point, average Americans must begin to ask themselves if this president has any common sense at all. And the asking of the question will be the answer. No. And if the Republicans do not begin asking this and other questions shortly, they may have a lot of years to rethink matters, as they did between roughly 1932 and 1952.