Here is a slightly edited post a French friend of mine made outlining his position., Some good pts. here:
However difficult it is to express a clear and comprehensive ;opinion; on such complex matters, I;ll give it a try: your remark or rather, request, seems fair enough. What follows is my personal stand, then, the state of my reflections, and does not pretend to be deeply original. It did not intend to be boring either, but somehow I achieved that, in a desperate attempt to relieve the boredom! Potential Reader, you have now been warned.
I;ve tried to be as unemotional and as objective as possible. Very difficult indeed! Impossible, in fact.
I also leave myself wide open to all possibilities of ridicule, invective, sarcasm, name-calling, derogatory comments and criticisms; but also, possibly, to some interestingly polite retorts and remarks, and intelligently thought-out counter-arguments! I accept the risks, and hope to reap some benefits as well. We;ll see;
I see the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein as legitimate: it follows Iraq;s aggression against Kuwait, its defeat and the UN resolutions voted at the time. Saddam Hussein had clearly shown he couldn;t be trusted with any significant weapons. He has given no signs since that this situation has changed in any way. This process was implemented to a not insignificant degree and result (*). It is regrettable that it was stopped by Saddam Hussein, and that nobody did anything much about that. This deficiency is now being repaired, through the formal resolution 1441. I readily agree that the US threat of war has been paramount in achieving results since then. I strongly doubt that Saddam Hussein would have complied otherwise. Some threats are pretty efficient, and best kept as such, provided they remain credible;
I share the French Government;s position (to which a number of other governments have adhered), i.e. that this resurrected process already shows results (according to Hans Blix;s recent report, to which I listened in toto), that it can (and must) still be improved, and that it requires more than just the few weeks since it has re-started (**). Moreover, the very process re-enforces the containment of Saddam Hussein;s aggressive moves, which has already been in place since 91: not only is he under constant monitoring and surveillance;but there is now a huge army, with ultra-sophisticated weapons, surrounding him, ready to pounce upon him at the slightest attempt to draw his gun. Again, there is no denying that US deployment of force has been crucial.
As a consequence, I don;t find it unreasonable to consider that no Iraqi threat is imminent, and therefore the current process should be allowed to run its course. How long should that take? Let;s bank on the 6 months period mentioned by Colin Powell (a man, by the way, who has earned, and still retains, considerable respect even from cowardly rats such as my compatriots and myself! What a President that guy would make;What are his chances? Very small, I guess)
A ;final; review will be made some time in this near future. I can;t forecast what will happen. If Saddam makes a deliberate provocative move in the meanwhile, or stupidly puts a premature end to the process, I think there;ll be no way to prevent the war... and I;m convinced that should such a casus belli be fully characterised, the French Government would not veto a UN decision to go to war. If, on the other hand, the conclusion of this thorough inspection is that the Tyrant;s Poisonous Teeth definitely seem to have been pulled out, then it will still be years of probation: monitoring, surveillance, regular checks. I just hope that the blockade will be gradually relaxed and eventually lifted, since we know that the Iraqi population suffers much more from it than its leaders (who are quite unaffected themselves, I;m sure).
What bugs me, or saddens me, or both, is the way many side issues (which is not to say they;re unimportant) keep coming up in any discussion. Since I;m writing a long post anyway, I;ll try to make a list:
1/ ;If you;re not with us, you;re against us;, followed ;logically; by ;And if you;re against us, you;re with ‘them; ;. I think this is not an unfair interpretation of the Bush Administration position, relayed by a large part of the US media. France and other countries are described as being ;pro-Saddam;, therefore supporting a murderous dictatorial regime: so we are ;bad guys;, because we disagree with the ;good guys;. The Bush Administration does not adhere to multilateralism, it is monolithic, and its basic stone is made of whatever Bush thinks is the correct position. This is not acceptable to a number of countries, and this has been clearly stated on different occasions, not only about this current crisis: the US government should consider its allies as partners, not vassals. I don;t hold it against them that they try the ;benevolent hegemony; game, but they shouldn;t be surprised that it doesn;t work that way with every country. It;s fine to have the support of Bulgaria (who are eager to join NATO) and of Poland (who are rightly grateful to have recently joined it); some other countries have other very honourable reasons to side with the US on this issue. But not every country is prepared to submit to this tutelage. The Bush Administration must learn to cope with this, and increase their power of conviction, not their capacity for invective.
2/ ;You ingrates! After all we;ve done for you!; I hope nobody thinks seriously that the French people have forgotten the American involvement in the liberation of our country (and of several others). My mother (aged 92) lived through it all, she remembers very well. She also remembers very well an Irish American officer who visited my parents at the ;Libération;, with some of his fellows. His name was;Patrick. I owe him my Christian name! And ;honni soit qui mal y pense;;I am the spitting image of my legal Dad! I could tell you more about our debt to those Americans, but that;s enough reminiscing.
I also hope that nobody thinks seriously that we are ungrateful (you;ll hear the occasional grumble from some of the old people, about the imprecision of American bombing over Normandy, whereas the RAF bombers were superb, but that;s just human nature;Always complaining!). But how can this be an argument for systematic approval of any American policy? Should we align our lives according to the wishes of the descendants of those who saved our parents; ? It just brings us back to the previous remark.
3/ ;You;re just a bunch of cowardly, spineless countries; I read about a speech made by GW some time ago, to US military forces, I think. He divided the countries in two categories: the ;free; ones, with a strong ;backbone;, i.e. those who approved the American position; and the others; Black and white vision is always dangerous, it erases the nuances, especially when it is accompanied with such hazy terminology. It;s one of the oldest tricks in the book to describe your opponents as cowards and yellow-livered rats and so on. It usually goes with ;we have God on our side;, or the more modern version ;we are a moral country;. Bush uses both. I;m pretty sure that the equivalent accusations were used in the first organised conflicts between cavemen. It;s time we all tried to do without them, they should not be used by Democratic Leaders. Again, loaded words and disparaging epithets applied to those who don;t agree with you are not necessarily convincing (we often do this as individuals, that;s a fact! But then, governments should behave more intelligently!).
4/ ;We have incontrovertible proof, you;ll see!; It took some time, and, as the French expression goes, ;la montagne a accouché d;une souris; (the mountain gave birth to a mouse). The proofs and evidence provided by Colin Powell were quite amazing. We didn;t need any about the nature of Saddam;s regime: this has already been amply documented in the past, and is hardly denied by any of the Western countries at least. This is a bit like trying to ;enfoncer une porte ouverte;, i.e. ;trying to break an open door;. Not that it;s not a serious matter, but it;s not the fundamental point of resolution 1441. Proof and evidence about Saddam;s stockpile are always welcome, the Inspectors were eager to receive them and had asked for them repeatedly. They were a bit late in coming from the US government (that was a real shame, all this ;we have proof, but we can;t show it to you;. Possibly reasonable, but hardly manageable) , and as far as we know now, they were not overwhelming. But OK, nobody;s naïve enough to think that there;s nothing hidden and that Saddam is playing the game like a gentleman. Further work by the Inspectors will uncover more, and, as many of us hope (right or wrong), this ongoing process will corner Saddam. The last bit concerned the alleged strong relation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This is really important, but Powell was very disappointing on this matter (again, this is my point of view. I have read many comments that the evidence had been overwhelming. I just don;t understand that.). It;s such a crucial point that one has to consider that if the Bush Administration could not bring more than that on the table, it;s because they don;t have more than that. They must be desperate, in fact, seeing the interpretation of the so-called ;Oussama Bin Laden address to the Iraqi Muslims;, as made in a number of US newspapers and official comments: an extraordinary challenge to logic. I read the transcript of the message: Bin Laden asked the Iraqi Muslims to fight against the Americans, with suicide missions and last-stand battles and whatever, even if it meant supporting the hated pagan regime of Saddam Hussein. This was interpreted as a strong alliance and partnership between those two baddies. That;s a variant twist of logic : ;If somebody says he;s with you, it means you;re with him;. Now Bin Laden does not appear to be really ;with; Saddam, and Saddam hasn;t declared that he was particularly ;with; Bin Laden. Again, this doesn;t mean Saddam is an innocent: Iraq has been a place where a number of terrorists have taken refuge in the past. Not the only place, of course;The vital point would be to demonstrate that Saddam actually supports terrorists, that he trains them, arms them, finances them. Such a demonstration would change the situation completely. I;m sure it would be irresistible. I don;t think the USA would even wait for any UN resolution. even if I think it;d be in their interest to make the move with formal support. The fact that this hasn;t happened at all indicates to me that the terrorist ;pretext; is flimsy at best.
5/ ;Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty, murderous, hated dictator: a war would be good because it would get rid of him.; Yes, he;s a jolly bad fellow, which nobody can deny. He oppresses his population, he has massacred Kurds and non-Kurds, he governs by terror and torture, arbitrary arrests, muffles the opposition (well, assassinates it). And he holds elections where he gets a 99.99% approval;All this is definitely convincing. The above is a good selling argument for war as a way to get rid of such a dreadful man, and regime. But this is not the point at stake in the current international debate: the UN resolution is about disarming Iraq, not overthrowing Saddam (even if the latter is one possible method of achieving the former). I;m not being cynical, I;m just trying to keep issues distinct. I;ve just read extracts of Tony Blair;s recent speech: he agrees that they are distinct issues, and is aware that war is not the only possibility to achieve 1441, but he justifies the war solution by saying that ;it;s a moral duty; to get rid of Saddam Hussein;Tony sure knows a selling argument when he sees one.
I recognise this is a very fundamental matter: should we, or should we not, intervene in sovereign states to eliminate political regimes that we consider hateful, and naturally, to ensure they are replaced by acceptable regimes? I can;t see any possibility for a general answer. The recent past has shown that there can only be ad hoc answers, and very selective targets, depending very much on circumstances. Not overwhelmingly moral, all this. Some of those actions have been undertaken with a fair consensus of nations (as long as there was no opposition by a strong one;) as in Kosovo and Afghanistan. In some other cases, they have been clandestine initiatives, covert operations, in which cases no consensus was sought after, the definitions of ;hateful; and ;acceptable; were very dependant on the nature of the operator, and morals had absolutely nothing to do with it all. Several countries played that game over the years, no exclusive blame attached.
I haven;t read Amnesty International;s most recent report, but I;m sure we would find in it still a goodly number of leaders that could do with a bit of elimination, and regimes that could do with some democratisation. If we wanted to go moral all over the place, we would face an ;embarras de richesse;. Why Iraq, as some asked on this BBS. ;Why not;, say others, with the argument that one has to start somewhere, they can;t all be done at the same time; Well, I don;t think we should even start, however sad and depressing this may be: it;s not realistic to envisage policing the planet and enforcing democracy by military action. Regrettably, this means that dictators are safe from the cleansing action of the great democracies, as long as they remain within their borders (the opportunity was missed with Saddam in 91. He;s back home now). As Jack says:
; The universe has been in existence for twelve billion years, the last six of which have given rise to intelligent life. During that period, not one hour of absolute equity has prevailed. You should not be surprised to find that this condition applies to your personal circumstances.;
It also applies to the circumstances of many of our neighbours on this planet as well.
By the way, our list of ;moral duties; is very long, and not limited to political matters: slavery, child labour, famine, illness, many things that can;t be eradicated by force either. Many organisations, governmental and non-governmental, are trying their best to alleviate those blights on our planet. A long-term job, no blitzkrieg here... Personally, I give them some of my money, I;m not brave or generous enough to give them some of my time. It;s better than nothing, so I exculpate myself... The amounts of money to be spent on a war against Iraq are enormous. A part of it could be applied instead to some of those other ;moral duties;. A silly idea, I know, but worth considering.
6/ ;let;s get it over with and go to war, this should do the job;. War may be a tempting solution to some immediate problems. But we all know that a ;solution; to a problem can bring with it a hundred new problems. Using military force would certainly eliminate Saddam, and destroy any significant weaponry for a long time. But considering the variety of political opponents to the regime (I followed the debates of those guys in their UK meeting), the variety of populations in Iraq: ethnically, religiously, linguistically;we would be in for a very uncertain period after that, and democracy would not necessarily arise from the ashes: there is a strong possibility of a split-up of the country itself (a huge problem would arise, with populations forced to move from one area to another), and also of activist Muslims gaining power (usual counter-reaction) which might not be conducive to an elimination of terrorism, but never mind, one might argue that anything would be an improvement after Saddam;s rule. The greatest political impact would definitely be across the Muslim population of the region and elsewhere, annihilating current trends toward a reformist moderate Islam, re-enforcing and exacerbating the extremist positions, and giving rise to thousands of new vocations for active terrorism against the US and their allies (not just the ones who currently support the projected war: I don;t think the French Government, for instance, has any illusions about being spared;although this has been hinted at as being its main cowardly motivation!) . This is not original, I have to say again, but it;s worth keeping in mind before war starts. If it really comes to that, we must not delude ourselves: a new series of major crises will immediately follow.
I;m not sure our complete alphabet would be enough in the case of the Iraqi situation;
7/ Secret agenda, hidden motives : I couldn;t care less. Not that I think there aren;t any, but because they;re not part of the real issue. We have to be realistic: governments are not totally innocent and disinterested: diplomacy is a dirty, cynical and intricate game, self-interest is taken for granted. If some countries see side-benefits in adopting a certain stand, the worst accusation that can be made against them is that they;re insincere, hypocritical, selfish, rapacious ;and so what;s new? It;s a good topic for righteous indignation, but only after having addressed, as much and as well as possible, the heart of the matter.
I would put in the same category the question of past behaviours: many countries have armed and trained other countries, for reasons that ;looked good at the time;, whether political (my enemy;s enemy is my friend, for the time being: see Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, some African countries, some South American regimes, etc.) or just sordidly financial. France has been very supportive of Iraq at one time (yes, Chirac was involved;), and so were the USA (I read that Donald Rumsfeld was very active too at the time, to help Iraq to have a better access to a number of chemicals. True or false? How could I tell? I read it, that;s all.) and others. This seems totally irrelevant to me when it comes to analysing the current situation. It is certainly not irrelevant in terms of looking back and evaluating the wisdom of certain short-term strategies adopted in the past, when you consider their long-term consequences, and resulting inconsistencies. But the benefit of experience is usually meagre, otherwise we;d all be extremely wise in our old age (a thing not confirmed by observation). A Chinese philosopher said that ;experience is just a lantern you carry on your back, to light the path you have already walked upon.; In some cases, this lantern is not even lit.
******************************
Wow; How I;ve been rambling;Anyone still with me? Thank you for your patience. I;m exhausted myself. I probably could add lots more, of no definite interest I;m afraid. So I;ll just re-read what I;ve written, for my sins, and post it; For better or for worse, I have bared a part of my soul in public; and I find the result much less attractive than I would have liked it to be. No matter. This subject is heavy on my mind, and it was a good cathartic process for me, at least, to write a few things down. Now you can fire at will; or at me, whichever you prefer.
(*) I read that between 91 and 98, when Saddam expelled the inspectors, ;90 to 95% of the Iraq weapons of mass destruction were eliminated in a verifiable process; (Scott Ritter, UN inspector during that period). To say that ;nothing happened during the past 12 years;, as a Bush representative was quoted to have said, is stretching the facts a bit. Scott Ritter added that whatever hidden weapons remained from that period would be unusable today anyway. There seems to be a sort of shelf life. I hope this is true;
(**) In the early days, before he was led to shift his position more ;aggressively;, Colin Powell was quoted to have said ;that it would require six months to find and destroy/dismantle the Iraqi weapons;. It;s been 2 months and a half so far, more or less, and about 400 sites have been visited, some of them several times. Initially, the estimate was that 700 to 900 sites would require checking. Powell;s guesstimate is not too far off the mark. This guy is good...
