People seem to have forgotten
Does anyone remember that during the US rush to invade Iraq, a variety third-party nations floated compromise plans delaying just months or even weeks on the US plan? The Canadian plan in specific was very favorable to us, terminating on March 28 of 2003. Under such a plan, we might have been able to obtain at least a majority in the Security Council to lend legitimacy to our side. Other plans in which we waited longer might have even overcome the French veto threat. This not to mention the possibility of securing transport through Turkey, increasing coalition partnership and participation, maintaining the political stability of allied leadership, and so on.
Plenty of US intelligence analyses even today give high probability of severe sectional strife and possible civil war next year. Over and over again before the war, foreign policy specialists wrung their hands over whether Iraq without Saddam would disintegrate into two or three pieces, resulting in long term chaos and destruction familiar to Afghanis. I do think that with enough focus on the matter we'll keep that from happening, but it's worth noting that it's a year and a half later and we haven't gotten out of crisis yet. Saying that the violence is (currently) only regional is misleading if it continues to gut Iraqis confidence in central governance. And since our use of the UN essentially amounted to "here's what we're gonna do, take it or leave it," and we showed absolutely no willingness to compromise with anyone to gain their support, we do not have nearly the resources (diplomatic, financial, moral, and military) we would have had otherwise.
Considering that the threats from North Korea that were intensifying then and remain today still unresolved, this does appear to be a collossal misallocation of resources. Unconscionable, in my eyes.
Plenty of US intelligence analyses even today give high probability of severe sectional strife and possible civil war next year. Over and over again before the war, foreign policy specialists wrung their hands over whether Iraq without Saddam would disintegrate into two or three pieces, resulting in long term chaos and destruction familiar to Afghanis. I do think that with enough focus on the matter we'll keep that from happening, but it's worth noting that it's a year and a half later and we haven't gotten out of crisis yet. Saying that the violence is (currently) only regional is misleading if it continues to gut Iraqis confidence in central governance. And since our use of the UN essentially amounted to "here's what we're gonna do, take it or leave it," and we showed absolutely no willingness to compromise with anyone to gain their support, we do not have nearly the resources (diplomatic, financial, moral, and military) we would have had otherwise.
Considering that the threats from North Korea that were intensifying then and remain today still unresolved, this does appear to be a collossal misallocation of resources. Unconscionable, in my eyes.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home