Wednesday, September 10, 2003

From Gwynne Dyer (or here or here), on the chances of other countries helping the American neocons out of their little Iraq problem by bailing them out with some foreign cannon fodder:

"Nobody talks openly about this, but many governments are also privately debating whether they want to help save the Bush administration from the consequences of its own folly. Without a lot of military and financial help that can only come via the UN, Bush may be dragged down to defeat by the Iraq war in the November 2004 election. With the extra troops and money, he might contain the problem enough to survive. But, they ask themselves, do we really want that?

Few people in Washington grasp how alarmed other governments are by the Bush administration’s pre-emptive strategy. They see the neo-conservatives as a mortal threat to the UN, NATO and the entire multilateral order that has been built up over the past 50 years as the foundation of global stability. Maybe, they think, it would be better to wait until Iraq drags Bush down, and start picking up the pieces in early 2005."


Besides the delightful prospect that Iraq may be the end of Bush, neoconservative militaristic foreign policy, and Bushite American unilateralism, there are a number of other reasons for foreign hesitation to bail out the Chimp-in-Chief:

  1. The neocons have spent the past six months insulting and attacking those who they now have to beseech for help. Revenge is sweet.

  2. Through their own complete stupidity, the Americans declared the attack on Iraq over, without bothering to inform the Iraqis. In war situations, it is normal for there to be a handing over of shields or weapons or standards, or a peace treaty, or a formal capitulation, or something. Besides the capitulation of a few traitor-generals who were bought off by the CIA in the 'Deal', there has never been any kind of surrender by the Iraqis. The Americans, for domestic political reasons (so George 'Fly-Boy' Bush could make his photo-op carrier announcement), decided to declare the war over early, which has put the Americans in the almost unprecedented position of being in a battle zone while pretending that the war is over. There is a similar situation in Afghanistan, where German and Canadian 'peacekeepers' are actually carrying on the unfinished war left by the Americans (the Americans can no longer even win a war responsibly). The foreign troops would just be in Iraq to finish off Bush's war, without even the plausible pretense of being peacekeepers. They have to walk around pretending to keep the peace while the local populace has a free hand at picking them off one by one. Why would foreign countries want to get into such an impossible situation?

  3. Bush wants to have foreign troops (in Bush-speak, 'fodder units' or FU's for short) to die in the place of Americans, while giving no military control to the countries who supply the FU's. That means that American commanders will have the ability to direct the foreigners to the areas of most risk, and thus avoid the political problems caused by a lot of American body bags. What foreign leader would be corrupt enough to agree to this?

  4. As I've mentioned before, the whole point of the attack on Iraq has become the lining of American corporate pockets by leeching money off American taxpayers and Iraqi oil fields. By far the biggest pocket is that of Halliburton, and thus the whole Iraq operation literally fills Dick Cheney's retirement fund (not only the million a year he still gets from Halliburton, but whatever outrageous salary they decide to give him after he retires or is retired from politics, which of course will largely consist of payment for past services rendered). The Americans won't be prepared to share in the redevelopment loot from Iraq. Just how crooked would a foreign leader have to be to spend his country's money and the lives of his country's soldiers so that Dick and his close personal friends can afford bigger yachts?

  5. It is simply not possible for the Americans to agree to allow any real democracy in Iraq, as real democracy will lead to governments worse for American interests (i. e., Israel and the oil companies) than Saddam was. Why would a foreign leader agree to spend money and lives when there is nothing in it either for his own country or for the future of Iraq?


Can't you just see the American helicopters lifting off from the American compound in Saddam's palace in Baghdad, with Iraqi collaborators vainly trying to hold on fearing their inevitable dismemberment by Iraqi crowds waiting outside the gates, and Bremer of Baghdad in his business suit and army boots flashing the V for Victory sign as he rises into the sky, abandoning the Iraqis to their bloody civil war? Peace with honor. Knowing that this is eventually going to happen, why would any decent country agree to participate in what amounts to the buying of some time for Hallibuton to steal those last few dollars from the Iraqi people? I imagine what we'll see is the agreement by some countries to help, with no troops ever actually showing up in Iraq.

0 comments: