Is the U.S. acting "unilaterally"? The U.S. has worked within the multilateral
framework since 1991. Most recently, the U.S. has been conducting the "full
court press" to obtain allies. The U.S. is making a good effort to establish a
multilateral coalition to pressure Saddam out, or go to war. Failing in its
efforts to acquire international consensus is not the same as ignoring the
rest of the world. Surely we cannot delegate important foreign policy
decisions to the UN in total. Foreign policy by international consensus will not
always be effective.
The WWII analogies don't always work. But, I think it’s interesting to look
back. I have always been a little surprised when I remind myself that the
U.S. did not join the war until December 1941. That was almost two and a
half years after Hitler's invasion of Poland. What could we have been
thinking?
It's hard to go to war. It's a big deal. But is it sometimes necessary? Can an
early war save heartache later?
Most of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate opposed the Gulf War in 1991.
They wanted to give diplomacy and sanctions more time. Where would that
policy have led? The fact is that the Gulf War was a just one but was ended
72 hours early. Then Saddam failed to fulfill the terms of that armistice. The
current crisis flows directly from that failure.
If we ignore the problem it will not go away. So, what are we to do?
#2: "Going to War Will Slow Progress on Other Priorities"
I am not prepared to support the U.S. going to war with every fascist. I am
convinced that we have far greater priorities, such as, 1) Fighting terrorism;
2) Working for peace in the Middle East; 3) Dealing with North Korea (which
looks to me to be a far greater threat to our interests); and 4) Rekindling
the U.S. economy. Going to war in Iraq will hurt our progress on all of these
priorities. And, I am especially troubled by the rank cowboys who don't
seem to care what the rest of the world thinks, and seem prepared to
proceed to war without backing by the UN.
Article comments