Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Damn fine diplomating, W
A new book claims the French were in talks with the Pentagon, as late as 12/2002, to provide 10,000-15,000 troops in Iraq, but back off when Bush insisted on rushing to war before inspections had completed.
If this is true, it should cause an earthquake. Think about it:
1. Had Bush played his cards right, the way his own father had in 1991, he could have had a worldwide coalition (would the Germans and Russians have stayed out if France went in? I doubt it), with all the legitimacy, peacekeeping and rebuilding expertise, and resources that come with it. Instead we got reluctant and coerced allies unable or unwilling to shoulder much of the burden, and an illegitimacy that had turned the occupation into a waking nightmare.
2. Why was Bush in such a goddamn hurry, if he could have had it all---his war and an international coalition behind it? Was it just an irrational hatred of the international community, the UN, and the French? Was it Rumsfield and the neocons whispering in his ear that the US needed to display its might, shock and awe, and all that? Were the Bushies afraid that inspections might work, so they couldn't have a war? Why?
3. Going to war against the will of billions around the world has turned the US into a pariah. It has undoubtedly undermined our abaility to coordinate with other countries in the fight against terrorism. It has surely inflamed terrorist recruitment against us. Going to war was unnecessary, but if it could be done in a way that minimized the appearance of imperialism, why not do it that way? For Jeebus' sake, why?
I never supported the war. I thought Iraq was contained, not a serious WMD threat, not a serious terror threat, and a potential guerilla war quagmire. But if Bush was going to go to war no matter what, why not minimize the costs and maximize the chance for success? Failure to do so is about the worst thing a president can do. It is surely impeachable. It makes a mockery of the Bush attack on Kerry (he won't keep you safe; he can't handle a war, etc; foreign countries will never come to our aid in Iraq, etc).
I look forward to hearing more about these meetings with Chirac. If this holds up, it should mean more than just an electoral defeat.
If this is true, it should cause an earthquake. Think about it:
1. Had Bush played his cards right, the way his own father had in 1991, he could have had a worldwide coalition (would the Germans and Russians have stayed out if France went in? I doubt it), with all the legitimacy, peacekeeping and rebuilding expertise, and resources that come with it. Instead we got reluctant and coerced allies unable or unwilling to shoulder much of the burden, and an illegitimacy that had turned the occupation into a waking nightmare.
2. Why was Bush in such a goddamn hurry, if he could have had it all---his war and an international coalition behind it? Was it just an irrational hatred of the international community, the UN, and the French? Was it Rumsfield and the neocons whispering in his ear that the US needed to display its might, shock and awe, and all that? Were the Bushies afraid that inspections might work, so they couldn't have a war? Why?
3. Going to war against the will of billions around the world has turned the US into a pariah. It has undoubtedly undermined our abaility to coordinate with other countries in the fight against terrorism. It has surely inflamed terrorist recruitment against us. Going to war was unnecessary, but if it could be done in a way that minimized the appearance of imperialism, why not do it that way? For Jeebus' sake, why?
I never supported the war. I thought Iraq was contained, not a serious WMD threat, not a serious terror threat, and a potential guerilla war quagmire. But if Bush was going to go to war no matter what, why not minimize the costs and maximize the chance for success? Failure to do so is about the worst thing a president can do. It is surely impeachable. It makes a mockery of the Bush attack on Kerry (he won't keep you safe; he can't handle a war, etc; foreign countries will never come to our aid in Iraq, etc).
I look forward to hearing more about these meetings with Chirac. If this holds up, it should mean more than just an electoral defeat.
