Occupying Iraq; "War," European Style
By Paul Walfield
The "old" Europe has a plan that on the surface appears imaginative, but if implemented as proposed, would be harder to sell than Cheez-Wiz and a box of wine to a Frenchman.
Evidently, "old" Europe's new definition of war also includes a "shot" across the bow of the United States.
The United Nations passed resolution 1441, which demanded the disarmament of Iraq of all its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has so far refused to cooperate, and being the righteous and steadfast folks that they are, the UN has likewise refused to accept "no" for an answer.
The United States wants to enforce the resolution militarily and following the conflict remain in country to ensure a peaceful Iraq will immerge from the conflict. So far, the detractors from military intervention have complained that "no one" is talking about how long we will have to remain in Iraq after the war, the potential astronomical costs and last but not least, how dare we impose ourselves on the free and sovereign Iraqi people.
However, if you say "please." and promise to take years to negotiate the occupation of a country without threatening to bomb innocent schoolchildren, all is copasetic.
Germany and France have "unveiled" their secret plan to avert war in Iraq. It is a simple and ingenious plan. Thousands of inspectors, guarded by tens of thousand of armed soldiers will take over Iraq without firing a shot. All of Iraq will become a no-fly zone and all of its institutions will come under international control. All they need is for Saddam Hussein to sign on the dotted line, and war is averted.
Though being contradictory is not to be avoided. While chastising America for not understanding the perils and costs of occupying Iraq after war, German Foreign Minister Fischer said, "Is the United States ready for a long-term presence?" then adding, "The idea (Iraq) will suddenly blossom into a democracy, I do not share." Germany then proposed long term occupation of Iraq by German and French troops with American help. Go figure.
It is "war," as defined by the 21st Century French and Germans. Unlike in the past when Germany defined war as kill everything in sight; they have joined the French definition of war as "are my hands raised high enough?" Continuing the French tradition and axiom that giving up is better than standing tall.
Saddam Hussein, driven with the courage of someone who doesn't have to fight, will no doubt balk at the idea. However, he will surely desire to maintain the appearance of wanting to negotiate the occupation of his country for many months and probably years, which is certainly what the French and Germans, along with the Russians are really after.
The ostensible motive of "old" Europe is humanitarian, but the reality is quite different. Keeping a vile tyrant like Saddam in power cannot be humanitarian in the long run, au contraire, it is to weaken the United States among other things. The "old" Europe had already begun that strategy by blocking, at least so far, NATO from aligning itself with the United States, and America's plan to protect NATO member Turkey with patriot missiles; in the event of war with Iraq.
If the US opposes the plan, America is seen as the bad guy, or worse "proves" the United States just wants war, and in effect allows the possibility that the dissenters were right all along, America wants to be an imperialistic power.
If America demands that the proposal to "peacefully occupy" Iraq be what it purports to be and has teeth, America falls into the trap of long and protracted negotiations during which time, support for armed conflict will diminish. America is between a rock and a hard place.
The United States can on the one hand, take the initiative and run with it. Call for a new resolution authorizing the US to move its troops into Iraq and take over the Iraqi institutions and Iraqi military bases, and for free rein in Iraq. It must do this quickly to avoid further "revelations" and proposals by 'old" Europe.
The new resolution must fully outline the spirit of the proposal for occupying Iraq, and must be announced quickly to avoid any more surprises and most importantly set a date for "occupation." We could demand that French, German, Russian, and Canadian troops be the first into Iraq to ensure peaceful compliance by The Hussein regime.
The Europeans will have to go on defense. America cannot afford to allow more time and obfuscation from the French, Germans, and Russians. Their purpose is to lessen America's standing as the world's sole superpower.
Allowing rogue nations to remain in power is to their advantage in the short run. Embarrassing the US and humiliating our President and foreign policy is a strategic goal of "old" Europe. They are in fact our rivals, and not our allies. The term "ally" is from the French, "alier," which means to bind. The only thing the French want to "bind" is a coalition against American interests.
On the other hand, The United States can reject the plan. The US can point out that even with thousands of inspectors and troops occupying Iraq, Saddam Hussein will remain in power and the Iraqi's can still not cooperate with the inspectors; merely wait them out and continue as they have always done in the past. Any exercise to "beef-up" the inspectors is an exercise in futility and allows the Iraqi regime more time to do the evils outlined at the UN by the Secretary of State.
Dealing with rogue nations and terrorists was pronounced by President Bush as a long and tough battle; dealing with our former "allies" must be fought with the same determination. The United States can truly say, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, "enoughâ¦, enough."
