February 17, 2003
POWER?
A New Power in the Streets: President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: world public opinion. (PATRICK E. TYLER, 2/17/03, NY Times)The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand. [...]
The fresh outpouring of antiwar sentiment may not be enough to dissuade Mr. Bush or his advisers from their resolute preparations for war. But the sheer number of protesters offers a potent message that any rush to war may have political consequences for nations that support Mr. Bush's march into the Tigris and Euphrates valleys.
This may have been the reason that foreign ministers for 22 Arab nations, meeting in Cairo today, called on all Arab countries to "refrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq's security, safety and territorial integrity."
War, like politics, is affected by psychology and momentum. The strong surge in momentum the Bush administration felt after Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the Security Council on the case for war has been undermined by at least four converging negatives.
The most obvious is the rupture in relations between Mr. Bush and some of his principal partners in Europe: France and Germany, now joined by Russia, China and a growing list of other countries. Just weeks ago, it seemed that Mr. Bush was successfully coaxing France and Germany into the war camp, especially after one of the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, delivered a negative report on Jan. 27 on Iraqi compliance.
But the swell of popular opposition to war across Europe, the second negative, plus the corrosive effects of the hawkish jibes that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have hurled across the Atlantic, have only roiled the waters further. Washington discovered just how deeply Western unity had been sundered when it asked for defensive NATO deployments to Turkey to protect that front-line state from Iraqi intimidation--a request that brought opposition and contentious debate that were resolved today.
It's too bad the war is starting so soon, because it would serve Administration purposes to let these protests and UN/EU posturing go on a bit longer, becoming ever more self-important, before ignoring them and demonstrating their essential triviality. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 17, 2003 8:58 AM
OJ -
The article is right in that the momentum after Powell's 2/5 presentation has been lost. The blogsphere is once again full of those who doubt Bush will do anything. The main media were always anti-Bush and even more so now.
Watching the US get jerked around by the UN, Turkey, etc. and watching the expected start date of a war get pushed back again and again (first predictions were shortly after the Nov '02 elections) doesn't foster hope.
For nowI'm still in agreement with you (Bush doing diplomat dance until ready militarily) I'm not concerned if Chirac and Schroder get hurt by all of this but if Blair and Howard get hurt by this it won't help the US in thelong run.
In sum, I'm not a warhawk but get on with it already
I've never despaired until Friday. I've always believed GW Bush would be Reaganesque or Thatcherite in this matter of live and death for western civilization. I too sensed that the speech Blix gave at the end of January created the momentum to start the war on the darkest nights of early February.
But Bush let that date pass, presumably because the army proved inexplicable unable to be ready after such a long period of building up. And what happened at the UNSC Friday was truly momentous : de Villepin routed the Americans and the English. And the march of despicable fools - because that is exactly what they are - has now killed any momentum for war. Not one single ally can still afford to stand by the US now. And Bush is no Thatcher, who told even a reluctant Reagan to shut up and stand back while she went on to administer the Argentinian dictator a severe beating. If he were, Saddam's army would be desperately trying to dodge bombs and cruise missiles by now.
I'm not sure I agree with all of this skepticism. It seemed pretty clear from Condi Rice's comments over the weekend that the war begins in early March.
Posted by: DJS at February 17, 2003 10:06 AMDJS -
Hopefully you're right. However the rhetoric by Rice, Bush, etc seemed to mean war in December, then January, then February, and now March.
Peter has a goodpoint - we hear the diplomatic stuff is a dodge while the military gets ready. The military has been getting ready for over a year and it appears it still isn't ready.
One theory in the blogsphere is that Bush did the buildup expecting Saddam to leave/be assassinated. With Saddam and France etc calling our bluff it comes down to whether Bush means it or not. Bush must know he won't get 10% of the vote in '04 (if he's the GOP nominee) if he backs down. That and he display of backbone on other issues has me still holding a sliver of hope that he will act without the UN backing.
As for the diplomatic front another "Group of 18" letter would help. NATO acking Turkey helps but Turkey delaying a US troop decision hurts.
Alex, keep the faith my friend! Thank goodness the blogosphere doesn't make American foreign policy at the moment -- there are actually folks with some training and experience in charge now! The blogosphere is about like a Gail Wynand newspaper (a little Ayn Rand reference to drive Orrin crazy) -- it rustles in the wind and reflects popular sentiment of a sort, but because of its nature, it has trouble with the long view.
If I were a gambler, I'd be betting heavily on Bush right now. There's nothing in his history as President to suggest he's going to back down on this matter, and maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm going to suggest that a little extra time (if indeed this is "extra" time, since none of us is privy to any date that was or was not set at some point) probably will come in handy for special forces on the ground in Iraq, which are gathering crucial info and perhaps even establishing useful relations.
The funniest thing is that even as we're growing slightly impatient, the lefties keep talking of a rush to war. At least I haven't heard the term "prescription drug benefit for seniors" lately. :)
Let's not be silly here. We can't bring the troops home without looking foolish and ifv Saddam is in power at the end of the year John McCain challenges Bush in the primaries, and wins. Even if you think Bush is craven you know he wants two terms, right?
Posted by: oj at February 17, 2003 1:42 PMWe already look foolish, Orrin. The line running
through my mind -- in fractured German -- for the
last several weeks has been from Hitler's
speech after the (umpteenth) collapse of
France. He mocked the British, who he said
kept asking themselves, "When is he coming?"
"Ihre kommt! Ihre kommt!"
On the other hand, my son-in-law has left
his ship and is "somewhere" in the northern
Persian Gulf, as of about a week ago. So maybe
war is going to begin after all.
But Bush has squandered a good part of his
strategic position. Diplomacy means nothing;
power all.
I, too, am beginning to have doubts that Bush will see this through. I know he has to realize that he could not possibly be reelected if Hussein is still in power, but he does seem to be taking too long and giving the opposition too much power in doing so. Maybe the strategy is to give them enough rope, but watching the French guy get wild applause at the UN followed by huge demonstrations is a little disheartening. And not because I think we need this approval, but rather because I wonder if it will change Bush's mind.
Posted by: Buttercup at February 17, 2003 3:54 PMUnless world opinion can go eyeball to eyeball with a carrier group, it is not a superpower. What "they" think is relevant only so far as we (Bush/US/West/etc.) are willing to listen to them. They only have the power and influence over us that we give them. As with most of its history, the United States is being most generous in even acknowledging the so-called world opinion by going to the UN in any capacity whatsoever. This doesn't even reflect the fact the so-called "world opinion" consists of the minority of the populations of a minority of nations. Even if it did represent an majority view, this does not equate to being able to dictate to the United States on matters of national security. World opinion is a just another factor to be considered amoung many. It is not a veto. However, the article, just in presenting world opinion as having "superpower" status, is clearly surrendering super power status to them that it would not otherwise have. The reporter wishes it to be so, and this alone makes it so in his world view. Sorry. the sky is blue in my world, and I do not grant them that status or influence. We've heard what the world has to say, and considered it, and hopefully dismissed it. Its now time to get on with it.
Posted by: Biased Observer at February 17, 2003 7:15 PMHarry:
exactly. And who'll be in power in Iraq in June?
Butttercup:
C'mon...you really think he'd rather be the second one-term Bush than stand up to ANSWER?
BO:
Amen, brother. Here's to blue skies forever....
In June? If he can put it off till June, he can put
it off forever. Train's leavin' the station and
Bush ain't on board.
"World opinion" is going to look mightly stupid shortly, when newly freed Iraqis dance, laughing and smiling, in the streets of Baghdad.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at February 17, 2003 11:24 PMThat should be "mighty" of course - doh!
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at February 17, 2003 11:25 PMHarry:
Who's conducting your train?
No conductor. Bush has certainly put Iraq in play, though.
Posted by: Harry at February 18, 2003 1:51 PM