I haven't commented much on the situation in Iraq, at least not at any length. Shameful of me in light of how important events are there to the larger international balance of power. It gives one great pause and a certain amount of trepidation thinking of the various outcomes that may befall Iraq.
Before glancing into the future, recognition of the controversy surrounding the initiation of major hostilities beckons. Seeing Mr. Hussein in the docket in an Iraqi court of law is, for me, as powerful as the image of the lone man from Beijing going toe to toe with a 45 (anyone's guess) ton tank. On that basis alone the invasion and -lets call a spade a spade - occupation of ancient Mesopotamia is a noble cause. If it succeeds, the West, more precisely, the Anglo-American alliance, the heirs of the Atlantic Charter will have something to be proud about and the people of Iraq, and maybe the region, will be in Washington's debt. But to remain the primary actor in the international system, a nation cannot be driven by noble causes alone. A country must act in their national interests first and foremost. All other considerations are presumptively secondary. For a nation to act contrary to their fundamental interests, the cause must be of such magnitude that reason compels a reluctant acceptance of the calculus of risk.
As glad as I am to see Mr. Hussein, stripped of his fedora and military fatigues, seated, with the look of one who has been thoroughly routed in a Baghdad courtroom, as far as US interests are concerned, the costs far outweigh the benefits. I can't help but believe that the architects of the contemporary international security environment, the Roosevelt's, the Eisenhower's, the generation that fought and helped defeat Nazi Germany are now rolling in their graves.
But we are where we are now and the situation must have a favorable outcome or the unintended consequences will have far reaching implications for the sustainability of the Pax Americana. So looking forward, there are many things that need to be done. First, I implore the powers that be to find the troops to flood Iraq with at least three hundred thousand more boots on the ground. Can u imagine landing on Normandy undermanned, or coming ashore at Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima or Okinawa without the military manpower needed? It borders on criminal negligence to put the armed forces in harms way in numbers too few to accomplish the mission. If the country doesn't have them, then the moment of truth may be upon us. But I fail to understand why 100 000 plus in the European theatre cannot be quickly redeployed. And there a many more throughout the globe stationed in an outdated Cold War posture. Without further delay, those units should join the current US presence in Iraq. An Iraq that fractures is not in the interests of Washington. Outside powers necessarily will have a different point of view. But even when looking at it in the light most favorable to Washington, the territorial integrity of Iraq is in jeopardy, but it must be fought against. Hence the massive troop build up.
Second, American diplomacy must begin to be used in a way that it hasn't been for along time now. In this age of JDAMS and stealth technology, diplomacy gets too short a shrift. American diplomacy must think big. There are deals to be made. Compromises to be had - win/win situations that want for exploitation. When used properly, coupled will political will, diplomacy can in one moment change the world we live in. Can you remember Nixon in China? And when it is abused and neglected the powers of diplomacy are no less potent, albeit destructive. Think of the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran. So there is great work to be done on the diplomatic front.
Lastly, in the coming days I will address the odd relationship, if it can be called that, between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Israel. Resolution of this, the other 'peace process' is crucial and long overdue.
