Great Foreign Affairs article on pre-Iraq war diplomacy

[Jason McCullough]

"Stumbling Into War, by James P. Rubin"

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504/james-p-rubin/stumbling-into-war.html?mode=print

I can't recommend this article strongly enough; it's a perfect summary of how Bush blew the pre-war diplomacy, and we're going to be paying the price.

[Daniel Morris]

...preventing the United States from being seen as an aggressor would have required a comprehensive game plan.

Actually, this would have required a bag of faerie dust, since Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, and others have made it explicitly clear that they would have opposed military intervention in Iraq under any circumstances.

This reticence has little to do with Saddam and everything to do with counterbalancing American power.

Fourth, the belated effort to achieve a second Security Council resolution could still have succeeded, had the United States been willing to compromise by extending the deadline by just a few weeks.

Rubin's points 1-3 are debatable, but Point 4 is an outright fantasy.

One of the main sources of European skepticism toward the U.S. campaign in Iraq was the sense that Washington was determined to go to war regardless of what Saddam did.

When Hans Blix described Iraq's Dec. 8 declaration as "wholly inadequate," one might have assumed that the UN was well on its way to concluding that Saddam was not interested in complying with Security Council ultimatums. One would have been wrong, of course.

Above all, it was the belief that the military buildup in the Persian Gulf was driving the United States' policy decisions that led many to conclude war was inevitable.

Excellent point -- because once it became obvious that war was inevitable, that was FGR's [France, Germany, Russia's] cue to obstruct the UN process as egregiously as possible, earning the contempt of even Colin Powell. The purpose of this obstructionism was to isolate the US; the decision had nothing to do with any moral business.

The administration simply did not care very much whether it had international backing or not, and the Europeans knew it.

Couldn't agree more. America and Britain stepped forward to enforce international law, primarily as a matter of specific self-defense and secondarily as a simple matter of being the only nations with the capability and will to do it. That other European countries obstructed this effort should come as no surprise to folks like Zbigniew Brzesinzki, who noted in 1999 that "France will play a role on the international stage much along the lines of the role Gary Payton plays in the NBA -- a good but unexceptional player taunting the league's superstars."

The unanimous passage of Resolution 1441 in November of last year had masked a number of major differences among key members of the UN Security Council.

Chief among these differences is the fact that FGR were unwilling to support military intervention under any cicrumstances.

Washington, however, was caught flat-footed by these developments [partial compliance by Iraq], and the result was disastrous.

TIME OUT -- How can Rubin possibly claim this? "Partial compliance" was the exact reason that Washington did not want to go to the UN in the first place. It was assumed that Saddam would stall, prevaricate, and otherwise confound the effort to fully determine the status of his WMD programs. Washington knew all along that Rubin's "fourth scenario" was the one that would actually come about.

Above all, it was the so-called preemptive strike doctrine, published in last September's National Security Strategy, that harmed America's diplomatic cause. Viewed through this lens, the war in Iraq looked less like a way to uphold UN Security Council resolutions than like the manifestation of a new American approach.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. FGR's intransigence post-1441 had nothing to do with 1441 or any other Security Council resolution or lack thereof, but with a simple desire to obstruct US foreign policy prima facia once it became clear that US foreign policy meant business now.

Much of the world became determined to prevent the Security Council from rubber-stamping American decisions to conduct preemptive strikes.

Deeper into the heart of the matter. "Rubber-stamping American decisions" is the way FGR describes the enforcement of UN resolutions aimed at controlling the WMD programs of unaccountable regimes.

The real surprise was that the world's democracies did not see the importance of upholding UN disarmament demands or ending the misery of the Iraqi people.

Amen.

Public diplomacy is supposed to persuade, not infuriate.

At last, after flirting with the heart of the matter -- we reach the aorta. The world opposed the war in Iraq because the US was not polite/humble enough in asking for it. This is Rubin's essential thesis, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. The rest, as they say, is academic.

As a result of Paris' position, many Iraqis continue to associate France with the hated Saddam regime...

As well they should.

To be fair, the administration had compelling rationales for war beyond the threat of Iraqi WMD.....But each of these arguments, although perhaps otherwise convincing, were undermined by the administration's record or reputation.

I'm surprised McCullough linked to this. I'm impressed with Rubin. He understands, quite perceptively, that the world was unwilling to back US action because Bush & Co. were the pitchmen for that action. The intransigence and obstructionism had nothing to do with the case, and everything to do with disdain for the lawyer.

[Jason McCullough]

The lawyer and the case aren't separable, but then again, I don't see why they would have gone along with Clinton acting like such an asshole, either.

[Doug Erickson]

[Rubin] understands, quite perceptively, that the world was unwilling to back US action because Bush & Co. were the pitchmen for that action.

McCullough linked to it for precisely that reason; I think he, like a lot of us libruls, agree that the many of the UN reasons for obstructing us were spurious.

However, this article also (only but somewhat indirectly) points the finger at the American people for putting such a diplomatic dim bulb as Bush and Cronies as our proxy to the civilized world community. We're not an island. We need to elect presidents palatable to the rest of the world (at least in part), not just to beltway bible-beaters and the AEI apologists.

After all, if another country in the UN elects a diplomatically uncouth leader, they'll have hell to pay, too. Have Israel's international affairs been any easier under Sharon? It behooves us all to choose our leaders in a much more global sense if we're gonna facilitate joint actions in the future. Duh. What makes us so special that we can elect an blithering buffoon and expect the world to chum up?

Oh, that's right. We're AMERICA. *waves flag*

[theblackw0lf]

Unfortunately at the time of Bush's election Foreign Policy wasn't as much as an issue, because the American people didn't realize how vital foreign affairs were to their own interests. I think they're waking up now.

[Qenan]

Nah. The election will be won or lost based on jobs and the economy.

I don't say it's right. But it's the way to bet.

[theblackw0lf]

Nah. The election will be won or lost based on jobs and the economy.

I don't say it's right. But it's the way to bet.

Well considering his recent slide in the polls can be primarily attributed to the situation of Iraq I think I disagree

[Prodigy]

Actually, this would have required a bag of faerie dust, since Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, and others have made it explicitly clear that they would have opposed military intervention in Iraq under any circumstances.

No. If Blix/UN inspectors had said war was the only option, France would have support it. Even Clinton said it : inspections destroyed more weapons than the first Gulf War did. So let them do their job. That's all.

[Prodigy]

To further my point, a quote from the article :

A synchronized policy would have had the diplomatic and military tracks converge sometime this fall. All of the key players in Europe now say that they would have been prepared to support or at least sanction force against Iraq if it had not fully disarmed by then. And waiting that long would have demonstrated to all that Washington was prepared to go the extra mile to secure international backing.

I think that sums it up.

[bmulligan]

A synchronized policy would have had the diplomatic and military tracks converge sometime this fall. All of the key players in Europe now say that they would have been prepared to support or at least sanction force against Iraq if it had not fully disarmed by then.

Umm hmm, and Yassar arafat was just about to crack down on Hamas before Israel launched that rocket.

The great thing about being a terrorist, or a maniacal dictator is that you can rely on the procrastination of the world consensus known as the UN and the slow lag time between public outcry and governmental action. Or inaction, as the case may be.

The hypocracy that they would have approved millitary action now, but at that time it was out of the question, is an endorsement of Bush's leadership but will be looked at by liberals as the more "sensible" road not taken.

[Prodigy]

The hypocracy that they would have approved millitary action now, but at that time it was out of the question, is an endorsement of Bush's leadership but will be looked at by liberals as the more "sensible" road not taken.

Oh, right, the goddam "liberals".

As far as France is concerned, Chirac never said war was not out of the question, he said time more should be given to inspectors. And then, after a delay (not 6 years, but more like 6 months), if war was to be waged, then so be it.

[Rollory]

As far as France is concerned, Chirac never said war was not out of the question, he said time more should be given to inspectors. And then, after a delay (not 6 years, but more like 6 months), if war was to be waged, then so be it.

The problem is those delays would never have ended. There would have been talk about how the inspectors were making progress, were on some good trails, etc. etc. Just a few more months turns into just a few more years and after a while there's an election somewhere and then people just don't care anymore and the political will is gone. France's economic and internal social concerns absolutely prevent it ever approving the kind of war Bush wanted to fight. And regardless of whether the idea of liberalizing the Mideast by forcible example is practical or insane, it would never have even gotten tried - the status quo would've endured indefinitely, and I just don't see how anyone could describe the status quo in Middle Eastern countries as being in any way positive. Maybe it's worse now (although I don't think so), but change of some sort is needed somewhere.

And meanwhile - I know this is a minor point, but I'll mention it anyway - the Baath thugs would've kept running the country for their own profit, Uday would've kept raping and branding women, kids would keep getting tortured as pressure on their parents, and all that kind of thing. Small fry, really - just human life, it's real cheap on this planet - certainly not a reason for armed intervention. See Rwanda.

[Jason McCullough]

Ok, then, bonus question: why did the population of the *entire world* oppose invading? Seriously, the population of every single country opposed the war, excepting Britian, where support was weakly in favor.

[Rollory]

Ok, then, bonus question: why did the population of the *entire world* oppose invading? Seriously, the population of every single country opposed the war, excepting Britian, where support was weakly in favor.

There was at least one other actually. The Iraqi stock market kept going up the likelier a war looked.

But a possible answer to your question - because they're not the ones who have to live with the consequences, so they can afford to jump for a simple answer to a complex problem? War bad. Everyone knows that.

[Jason McCullough]

Then how come they supported the first gulf war? How come they supported the war on Afghanistan?

I haven't seen a coherent explanation of how the *entire rest of the world* disagreed with the US plan.

[bmulligan]

Jason, since when does a majority opinion make something the right ? So what if the 'entire' world disagrees, did ya ever stop to think that maybe we're allowed to make a decision without everyone elses consent? Who died and made 'world opinion' god?

Your bonus question is more like a boner question. I swear to god you are just contrary for the controversy's sake. I suppose if a majority of world opinion determined America should be destroyed, then we should lay down, cave to the majority and blow ourselves up?

[Jason McCullough]

I'm not asking if its right. I'm asking *how* conservatives explain the entire goddamn world disagreed with them. Hell, limit it to the first world if you want - how did the entire first world decide Bush was wrong? The usual explanation I see is that they're a) morons, b) cowards, or c) greedy. This seems a bit ridiculous.

[Machfive]

Ok, then, bonus question: why did the population of the *entire world* oppose invading? Seriously, the population of every single country opposed the war, excepting Britian, where support was weakly in favor.

Well, the population of the world, on a whole, opposes gay marraiges, so they must be right, right?

Just because a majority of uninformed, biased, and small-minded people agree on something doesn't make it correct.

I'd say the paths least taken are usually the ones that are ethically the best. Doing the right thing is often too damned difficult.

[Jason McCullough]

Again, I didn't ask whether it's a good thing they disagreed with us, or whether they're wrong. I asked if there's a coherent explanation of why they disagreed with us that a) doesn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the diplomacy like I think he did and b) doesn't resort to basically calling the rest of the world idiotic, evil, or greedy.

[Rollory]

Well, if the question is "what's the difference between Gulf 1 and 2", the answer is, Gulf 1 had Saddam blatantly invading somebody else, Gulf 2 didn't. Much easier to get popular support to shoot at him in that case.

The presence or absence of popular support has no bearing on whether shooting until he's dead, or shooting until he's scared off, is the right thing to do.

[Machfive]

Again, I didn't ask whether it's a good thing they disagreed with us, or whether they're wrong. I asked if there's a coherent explanation of why they disagreed with us that a) doesn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the diplomacy like I think he did and b) doesn't resort to basically calling the rest of the world idiotic, evil, or greedy.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I imagine their general disdain for Americana (despite their embrace of American pop culture) factors in there somewhere.

I don't think Bush fucked the diplomacy, France et al did. If they'd played with us, bluffed, and multilaterally told Saddam we were going to bomb him into the 8th dimension if he didn't give up the ghost, we wouldn't have had a problem getting him to fold. Instead, they all showed early on that they'd put a monkey wrench in UN intervention, and as a result, the US and Britain had to step up to the plate.

I fully believe there would NOT have been a war if France, Germany, and Russia had just played along with our threats of making good on 1441. Instead, they made a selfish power-grab, and we had to carry the slack, lest we look afraid of going to war.

The Osamas of the world love to see America back down from a hard-line stance, because it reinforces their belief that they will not recieve retribution for their actions. Just like us pulling out of Somalia showed him in '93.

[Jason McCullough]

Arrrghgh.

Question: why did the population - i'm not talking about the leaders - of virtually the entire world oppose the Iraq invasion by margins of 2-1 or more? Billions of people are "evil and stupid" isn't an explanation, and neither is "people always oppose war"; they supported the first Gulf War.

My take: People only support a war when there's a blatantly obvious good reason, and Iraq didn't have one. It had a few goods ones (WMD/human rights/defiance of the UN), but it required careful diplomatic explanations and negotation to get everyone on board. Instead, Bush basically threatened everyone to get into line, presenting no flexibility whatsoever. People aren't stupid; when Bush starts talking to Mexican newspapers about how "there'll be consequences for Mexican immigrants to the US" if Mexico doesn't vote for the US position; when Perle demands the German PM resign for not defying the 75% polling numbers in Germany; when Rumsfeld refers to our allies for 50 years disdainfully as "Old Europe", the population of all those countries get mighty pissed off at being shoved around.

There was a perfectly good set of reasons for invading Iraq, but Bush basically screwed up. He sold the Iraq war through an extremely abusive, tone-deaf public relations campaign designed more to fire up support domestically with his political base than to actually put together worldwide popular support for the plan. I can't even imagine Reagan talking like Bush and crowd did in the runup to this thing; I really don't think the level of abuse heaped on the rest of the world, the European democracies specficially, has a parallel in US diplomatic history.

[Dirt]

Again, I didn't ask whether it's a good thing they disagreed with us, or whether they're wrong. I asked if there's a coherent explanation of why they disagreed with us that a) doesn't have anything to do with Bush fucking up the diplomacy like I think he did and b) doesn't resort to basically calling the rest of the world idiotic, evil, or greedy.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I imagine their general disdain for Americana (despite their embrace of American pop culture) factors in there somewhere.

I don't think Bush fucked the diplomacy, France et al did. If they'd played with us, bluffed, and multilaterally told Saddam we were going to bomb him into the 8th dimension if he didn't give up the ghost, we wouldn't have had a problem getting him to fold. Instead, they all showed early on that they'd put a monkey wrench in UN intervention, and as a result, the US and Britain had to step up to the plate.

I fully believe there would NOT have been a war if France, Germany, and Russia had just played along with our threats of making good on 1441. Instead, they made a selfish power-grab, and we had to carry the slack, lest we look afraid of going to war.

The Osamas of the world love to see America back down from a hard-line stance, because it reinforces their belief that they will not recieve retribution for their actions. Just like us pulling out of Somalia showed him in '93.

I believe "Americana" is the proper word to use when describing American Culture.

[Bub, Andrew]

There was a perfectly good set of reasons for invading Iraq, but Bush basically screwed up. He sold the Iraq war through an extremely abusive, tone-deaf public relations campaign designed more to fire up support domestically with his political base than to actually put together worldwide popular support for the plan. I can't even imagine Reagan talking like Bush and crowd did in the runup to this thing; I really don't think the level of abuse heaped on the rest of the world, the European democracies specficially, has a parallel in US diplomatic history.

Yep. I agree completely. Bush mishandled this thing and continues to do so as of this morning. But at the same time I wonder why "the rest of the world" (I'm talking about the leaders here) didn't see or acknowledge the, as you call it, "perfectly good set of reasons for invading Iraq."

[Jason McCullough]

Well, I'm kind of annoyed they didn't know any better, but in context it makes sense. I mean, Bush gets into office, then:

Starts tearing up treaties left and right and trying to yank itself out of international commitments (land mine treaty, chemical warfare treaty, kyoto, the ICC, protectionism, you name it).

Announces a pre-emptive doctrine (for no apparent reason; it's not like we needed to announce it, even if we decided to use it) that seems almost calculated to piss off the rest of the world.

Stiff-arms NATO for no apparent reason in Afghanistan, more or less ignoring their first-ever invocation of Article 5.

To boot, he's really religious in both rhetoric and personal style, in a way totally culturally out of sync with the rest of the world (Europe, at least, definitively).

Any one of these by itself would only be mildly annoying, but it all adds up to a pattern that no doubt grates on the rest of the world. It's not the conservatism that does it; the world didn't loathe Bush I, or Reagan, like this. It's the diplomatic style - what ends up in the foreign papers is nothing but snubs and insults. I wish I could find the article that said it, but I remember a description of this administration as "Gulliver, thrashing violently at tiny restraints only he can see."

I think the leaders were just more or less following the will of their constituents (although as that article points out, there was any number of occasions where Bush probably could have got the leaders on board). You can't expect foreign leaders to both defy strong poll numbers and smile while you're kicking them in the shins. Maybe one, but not both.

[Bub, Andrew]

I think that's true of most of the nations. Germany, Russia, and especially France (who were allegedly benefitting a great deal from Iraq and the status quo) are more suspect here. Still, as one journo said (Zakaria?) it was a humbling moment in US history when the Bush administration had to approach 3rd world nations to get votes, and failed to get them on most counts.

There is one potential positive here. If we get a new President in 2004, that President will find it easy to re-forge these alliances because a lot of this anti-American sentiment seems to be anti-Bush administration and we're lucky to get a mini-revolution every 4-8 years.

[bmulligan]

Jason, I'm fuzzy on your 'rest of the world' claim. Exactly which countries were not with us besides Germany, France, and Russia?

[Toddy]

No matter what happens in 2004, history is not going to be kind to the Bush administration. Has any presidency in living memory done so much damage to the United States? The US economy is in tatters, the deficit is soaring, the dollar is in freefall, old allies have been alienated, and every nutbar in the world wants to blow up an American. Some of these factors would no doubt have arisen under Gore, but Bush has exacerbated every potential problem at every turn.

[XPav]

The Coalition of the Willing (www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/) that invaded Iraq.

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Rep.
Denmark
Dom. Rep.
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Micronesia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Solomon Isls.
Tonga
Turkey
Ukraine
UK
Uzbekistan

Countries that contributed any amount of comabt troops beyond a token are in bold. Both of them.

Everyone else did nothing. When you remove all countries with a GDP under $10,000, you get...

Australia
Czech Rep
Denmark
Estonia
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Netherlands
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain
UK

[bmulligan]

Yup, all bush's fault. The 'whole world' is against us al because of Bush...................ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZzz

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, and how many countries on that coalition actually had popular support? I think the UK (and maybe some of the eastern european countries like poland) are it.

There is one potential positive here. If we get a new President in 2004, that President will find it easy to re-forge these alliances because a lot of this anti-American sentiment seems to be anti-Bush administration and we're lucky to get a mini-revolution every 4-8 years.

Yeah, I hope so.

As to Russia, they're more or less a dictatorship at this point; Germany's still extremely pacificist; and the French are a pain in the ass. I think talking about "convincing the leaders" is a bit of a misnomer, though; while you can do so, it's normally a lot more effective to convince the population. The leaders will follow.

[Anders Hallin]

Was there any actual proof of those French deals? Because I heard on the radio a month or two ago about how surprised and upset French journalists was at the lies and vitriol spewed by the US during that period.

[Brad Grenz]

France has a pretty long and well established business history with Iraq. I understand they basically held the purse strings for the Oil for Food program and were getting great rate on oil out of the relationship. I can think of a certain nuclear reactor France built for Iraq which was far larger than it needed to be... Are the French completely oblivious to these things? To Chirac's visits to Iraq (under Saddam) where he was recieved with great honor?

[Jason McCullough]

If you want to go back that far, the US sold 'em poison gas. I'd stick to post Gulf War I.

[Anders Hallin]

France has a pretty long and well established business history with Iraq. I understand they basically held the purse strings for the Oil for Food program and were getting great rate on oil out of the relationship. I can think of a certain nuclear reactor France built for Iraq which was far larger than it needed to be... Are the French completely oblivious to these things? To Chirac's visits to Iraq (under Saddam) where he was recieved with great honor?
And again, proof? Actual numbers?

[Prodigy]

Just because a majority of uninformed, biased, and small-minded people agree on something doesn't make it correct.

Of course you are well informed by unbiased medias. I'm laughing my ass off on this one...

[Prodigy]

To Chirac's visits to Iraq (under Saddam) where he was recieved with great honor?

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld never had a meeting with Saddam Hussein while he was America's friend for kicking Iran's butt... Relations come and go, old "friends" became foes, and vice versa. That's politics.

[Bullhajj]

Chirac's visits to Iraq (under Saddam) where he was recieved with great honor?

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

Ooopsie. That's not Chirac!

[mtkafka]

Maybe thats why Hussein is still alive! Rumsfeld doesn't want to kill a buddy! OIL IS OUR FRIEND!

etc

[Prodigy]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/rumsfeld.80s.jpg

To our great Shame the always provocative Jean Marie Le Pen also went to visit Saddam. It made quite a big fuss here. He should have stayed in Irak while the US were attacking. Two birds with one stone...