[A-List] US imperialism: a Clintonian view

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Greetings, all. It's going to take me a while to get back on top of
things, but I accumulated a few relevant items whilst supposedly
withdrawing from the monitoring of our evermore crisis-ridden
predicament for a few weeks...


Having previously frowned upon "Europe's" "appeasement" of Milosevic prior
to the arrival of Tony Blair in 1997, suddenly former Clinton national
security adviser Ivo Daalder looks to Europe to rein in Dubya. Fat Chance,
but an interesting indication of the desperation in certain quarters of US
elite opinion regarding the current state of play...


Speak up, Europe
By Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay
Financial Times: August 9 2002

Slowly but surely, a debate is emerging within the US on the wisdom of
President George W. Bush's intention to oust Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq. Documents leaked to prominent newspapers have revealed divisions
within the Pentagon on how this can best be accomplished. And last week the
Senate committee on foreign relations spent two days hearing testimony from
non-government experts on the what, how, when and why of regime change in
Baghdad. Polls show that, while most Americans support Mr Hussein's removal,
they remain divided on the wisdom of using ground troops to do so.

Many in Europe have long been demanding just such a debate. Ever since last
January, when Mr Bush branded Iraq - along with Iran and North Korea - as
part of an "axis of evil", they have been asking tough questions about
possible military action against Baghdad. What is the nature of the Iraqi
threat? How grave are the risks of military action against Iraq in terms of
casualties and the possible use of chemical and biological weapons? What are
the implications for regional stability? Can the economic consequences of
rising oil prices be managed? How will security and stability within Iraq be
maintained once Mr Hussein has been removed?

Now that American politicians have decided to confront these questions,
different views are likely to emerge - not only about how to conduct a
military campaign against Mr Hussein but also about whether one should be
undertaken at all.

Europe can play a crucial role in shaping how this American political debate
unfolds. It is true Washington insiders usually scoff at the idea that
European views can influence their decisions. So far, the Bush
administration has found it easy to dismiss Europe's questions as little
more than whining by allies that have grown comfortable with appeasing rogue
states.

But Europe could decisively influence US policymaking if it could clearly,
forcefully and collectively back a coherent alternative to the Bush
administration's emerging strategy of military action.

What would such an alternative be? It would have to accept the premise of
the US debate: that the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable. Mr Hussein's
continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction poses too grave a risk -
one that will only worsen with time.

Something, therefore, has to give. Either Mr Hussein or his weapons must go.
The latter requires the kind of intrusive and unconditional inspection
regime that few believe Baghdad would accept. But if Europe joined the US,
and perhaps Russia, to give Mr Hussein a choice - either give up your
weapons or give up your power - there would be a chance, perhaps even a
substantial one, that he might choose his neck over his weapons.

This strategy can work only if Europe is prepared to match words with deeds
and participate in a war aimed at deposing Mr Hussein. It must be made clear
to him that all the main powers are united if there is to be any hope he
will allow the kind of robust inspections needed to uncover and destroy his
vast inventory of weapons of mass destruction.

So while America debates the how, when and why of going to war against Iraq,
Europe has its own choice to make. It can sit on the sidelines, with some
carrying Mr Bush's water and many others carping about his unilateralism. Or
it can begin to act as the power so many Europeans wish existed; and propose
and back a forceful alternative that stands a chance of getting much of what
the US wants in Iraq.

Would Washington listen? The emerging US debate reflects a growing
recognition that the course the Bush administration seems intent on pursuing
carries significant risks - of substantial US casualties if the fight is
carried to the streets of Baghdad, of precipitating the very use of weapons
of mass destruction by Iraq that war is designed to prevent and of
committing the US to a lengthy occupation of Iraq.

Confronted with this potential price tag, many Americans may well be
inclined to try something else first. Indeed, senior members of the Senate
foreign relations committee, including Senator Joseph Biden, its chairman,
and Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking member, indicated that they supported
a renewed attempt to get Baghdad to accept intrusive inspections, at least
as a first step. But to step back from the march to war, Americans need to
know that a less risky and perhaps equally effective strategy has
international support.

As last month's confrontation over the International Criminal Court showed,
when Europe speaks with a single, clear voice the White House is forced to
listen. Europe therefore has a responsibility once again to speak with a
single, clear voice on Iraq. If it does, America may again listen. But if
Europe prefers carping from the cheap seats to offering an alternative of
its own, it will have little reason to complain if America decides to go its
own way.

The writers are senior fellows at the Brookings Institution in Washington,
DC