[Return to Home] [Return to Reflection Room]

International Politics, Opportunities, and Diplomacy
An Essay on the Nature of Modern Politics and the Fall of Iraq

Blair Says U.S. Has No Plans to Attack Syria, Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27490-2003Apr4.html

It's just a piece of a very large puzzle, but I definitely recommend everyone to read the article to understand the fear expressed for a widened conflict. A lot of people love conspiracy theories but they are often presented in the absence of the realities of international politics and diplomacy. For example, the U.S. has the military capacity to remove the dictator Fidel Castro in Cuba as a threat, but doesn't because it is politically and diplomatically unviable. You need an internationally recognizable reason and tremendous political incentive to act. By political incentive in our modern world of politics, I don't just mean achieving your goals but, as important, drawing positive response and uniting nations behind a favorably viewed cause.

The U.S. response to 9/11 was Afghanistan. It was an extremely politically viable action with international support and increased clout. The Taliban fell and al-Qaeda was decimated but not totally extinguished. But yet from the reaction of the people of Afghanistan and world opinion, the approval for action was high. There was an internationally recognizable reason and tremendous political incentive.

Saddam got stomped on because it looked like he was hiding something and his track record over the past 12 years was a chronology of untrustworthiness. Those who disbelieve can watch and read the accounts by the previous weapons inspectors. Damn, if you're going to hide weapons, hide it well and recognize that the weapon inspectors are your friends. How things appear are tremendously important in the realm of international opinion. If he had played it smart the U.S. wouldn't have a justifiable leg to stand on since the weapons inspectors would truly be reporting complete cooperation and no finds instead of suspicious documents, behavior, and surprise finds of undisclosed chemical shells and missiles.

So in the case of Iraq, there was an internationally recognizable reason that not everyone exactly agreed on- non-cooperation with UN weapons inspectors/possible continued deception that has gone on for 12 years=non-compliance with UN resolutions and a perceived threat to U.S. citizens. I certainly didn't feel the reasons necessarily justified the action, but the Bush Administration felt it did and ultimately the administration was elected to make those decisions. The ultimate political incentive, however, was one that stood on moral grounds. Liberation of a country from a dictator that killed nearly half a million of his own people is considered moral by many people, including many people in the Arab world. In the Arab world there is feeling the action to remove Saddam was right, but great resentment that it HAD to be done by the American infidels- overall opinions remain surprisingly split and emotions mixed. Fortunately, many leaders, writers, and educated citizens in the region are calling for a reservation of opinion until AFTER the government in Iraq is installed to see what the coalition does for the sake of the people of Iraq.

Peace isn't easy. All countries that want peace are going to have to get off their asses and work for it. As a member of the international community, the U.S. government will have its own political goals that it feels it needs to push, just as all the other governments have their own agendas. Politics is about making sure your concerns are addressed. However peace is attained by all countries coming together to work out their differences. To me, having a check list of conditions met for inspections in a fixed amount of time in exchange for peace and a continuing dialogue for peace was not unreasonable. Even if you don't agree with the details, you NEVER stop talking if you want peace (yes I'm looking at you France and Russia).

At this moment in time, neither the dictatorship in Syria nor the oligarchy in Iran have been uncooperative or caused significant problems. There is the issue of Arab fighters and some equipment flowing into Iraq allegedly from Syria, but truthfully, unless large numbers of U.S. troops are killed because of them, nothing will come of it. In Iran, one of the most interesting things occurred following the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. While many Arabs in the Middle East were protesting against U.S. imperialism, etc, the students and educated people in Iran were protesting for more freedoms and rights. They even started protesting for more freedoms and rights at soccer games thereafter. This took the Iranian regime so completely by surprise that it terrified them. They were so concerned by this that when the statues fell in Baghdad in the evening, they didn't broadcast the pictures of Iraqis dancing in the streets until the following evening possibly for fear of demonstrations by students and educated professionals in Iran.

The realities of the situation are this:

The entire Muslim world is watching the United States. Politically, the U.S. has more to gain, and Bush more to gain, by doing this right and making sure Iraq is ruled by Iraqis than anything else. Bush knows this. The coalition's first priority is securing Iraq. If Arab fighters coming across borders becomes a problem, there will be plenty of open political discussion on the topic before any action is taken. This is the way diplomacy works in the modern age. All diplomatic channels must look like they've been exhausted before action is taken.

In the case of Iraq, France and Russia gave the U.S. exactly that dead end by refusing to negotiate. If you don't want the U.S. policymakers to do something, you always negotiate in good faith and keep your diplomatic channels open. It is important for maintaining a perception of integrity, fairness in principles, and influence by positive reputation that modern U.S. diplomacy operates this way. The old perceptions of imperialism by western powers who install puppet regimes has fallen out of style and is neither popular internationally nor domestically. In a very real sense, the present crisis is a test in the eyes of the world and the citizens of coalition countries to see if the outdated policies of imperialism have indeed been abandoned or simply redressed in a different guise.

The way politics, especially international politics, works is that all actions, including diplomacy, formation of alliances, negotiation, and war, are tools and means to an end. You never do ANYTHING unless there is a political advantage to do so. Anyone who doesn't understand this extremely basic principle has no understanding of what's going on and have no credibility discussing anything they think will happen. The world political scene is akin to a playground with no direct adult supervision. The nations of the world are individuals on the playground who interact to get what they want. But far from being a static world, throughout history, some of the individual nations grow up and mature, and as they do, their policies reflect that growing maturity. The very nature of the community has changed a great deal over the past 100 years from the rise of the Imperialist Powers, to the Cold War, to the fall of the Soviet Union.

For those who do understand, you can quite clearly see that correctly handling Iraq is a political goldmine. In modern times, principles, ideals, and values hold more weight than the old strategy of conquering and exploiting resources. Why? Because there is no more antithesis archetype that was the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. There is no more superpower nemesis. Nations always choose the course that benefits it the most politically and in modern times that means viewing you in the most positive light while at the same time achieving your goals. The powers of the modern world have adopted a role akin to that of guardians of the playground. There is an atmosphere and expectation of responsibility in conduct and behavior. All actions that may spur controversy must have value.

Attacking Syria and Iran without direct cause has no value. The United States, as a democracy in this new world order, is under particularly severe scrutiny inside and out by international and domestic opinion. Politics is about power and influence in the international community to ensure your interests and policies are carried out and it overrides all actions that could weaken your position, especially anything as absurd as attacking Syria (which has traditionally been an enemy of Iraq) and Iran (which is exhibiting a foundation for an ideological revolution that isn't ready for outside intervention).

The truth is politically, the U.S., GB, and the overall coalition have more to gain politically by making sure Iraq is handled right than anything else. It ensures their role and place on the playground as leaders. This is the goal of politics- making sure your interests are attained/protected while you are perceived positively by the international community. This positive perception increases your diplomatic influence, your prestige, and your reputation. These goals would not be accomplished attacking a country not under UN sanction or a perceived direct threat to citizens on U.S. soil. It is by this reason that Libya is currently not a target and neither are Syria nor Iran. I don't doubt there might be ultra conservative coldwar era pundits in Washington who want Syria and Iran taken out, but it just won't happen. It is not politically viable to do so. The playground has changed.

Bush and his advisors are listening to the same Middle East experts and Arab writers that a lot of us watching the war coverage have been listening to. Surprisingly it has not been overwhelmingly anti-America at all. The situation is fearful and tense and all eyes are on Bush and Blair and the current task of securing Iraq so a new government can be established. Many, even those in the Arab world, are cautiously optimistic for positive change. Many Arab governments are nervous because they are not representative forms chosen by the people. A free representative government in Iraq and Afghanistan are threats to their existence.

To come in as liberators and to set up a government with no strings attached not only lifts the credibility of the 45 coalition countries, but also lifts the clout of Bush and Blair in the middle east as men of their words if they pull this off right. Politically both of them have a tremendous amount of clout to gain by doing this right and they both know it. It elevates their station in the Arab world and Western world and can give them enough leverage to solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue. They've both put their reputations on the line by making direct promises broadcast to the Iraqi people.

What's truly scary is the direction the administration is moving in has so far been the right path, if tenuous at times. If they carry it through, history may remember them as two of the greatest leaders in history. Scary isn't it? With Blair running point on organization it is very possible it will happen. Bush is not heralded by his critics for his perceived intelligence, but he understands what's politically viable. And this whole thing has been about politics and not being remembered as the president who allowed half a million people to die because a city ended up being hit with nerve gas from terrorists. The threat doesn't have to be real. The fear does. And besides, with a 77% approval rating you don't do anything stupid to lose that. You do the right thing in Iraq to get that 80-90% approval rating that will be just in time for the next election. THAT is the ultimate goal and the course of things to come.

-Albert Wang
April 11, 2003

[Return to Home] [Return to Reflection Room]