Victor Davis Hanson The Train Is Leaving the Station
Will our “friends” jump on in time?
Wars disrupt the political landscape for generations. Changes sweep nations when their youth die in a manner impossible during peace. An isolationist United States became a world power after the defeat of Japan and Germany, buoyed by the confidence of millions of returning victorious veterans. Even today the pathologies of American society cannot be understood apart from the defeat in Vietnam, as an entire generation still views the world through the warped lenses of the 1960s. In some sense, postmodern quirky France today is explicable by the humiliation of 1940 and its colonial defeats to follow.
So, too, one of the most remarkable military campaigns in American military history will shake apart the world as few other events in the last 30 years. Depressed and discredited pundits now turn to dire predictions of years of turmoil in postbellum Iraq. A lunatic Syria promises a Lebanon to come. Meanwhile we are currently reassured that the Atlantic Alliance is unchanged. The Washington-New York corridor, in sober and judicious tones, has rightly emphasized to us all that we must work harder to renew our old ties — echoed by their like counterparts in Europe. But it is eerie how the more the experts insist on all these probable scenarios, the more they seem terrified that things are not as they were.
Something weird, something unprecedented, is unfolding, driven by American public opinion — completely ignored in Europe — and the nation’s collective anger that Americans are dying by showing restraint as they are slandered by our “friends.” Despite the protestations of a return to normalcy, this present war will ever so slowly, yet markedly nonetheless, change America’s relationships in a way unseen in the last 30 years.
With little help from Saudi Arabia or Turkey — “allies” and “hosts” to our troops — damned by many of our NATO allies, stymied in the U.N., turned on by Russia, opposed by Germany and France, the Coalition nevertheless is systematically liberating a country under the most impossible of conditions. This experience in turn will oddly — if we avoid hubris and maintain our sanity — liberate us as well.
Far from making the United States hegemonic, the success in Iraq will have a sobering effect on Americans. Contrary to pundits the hard-fought Anglo-American victory will not make us into hegemonists, but simply less naïve about tradition-bound relationships and the normal method of doing business. I would expect military spending to increase, even as reluctance grows to get involved with any of our traditional allies. Given billions of dollars in foreign aid, the past salvation of Europe from the Soviet juggernaut, and a half-century of protection under our nuclear shield, the old way was supposed to work something like the following.
At worse France and Germany would quietly call Mr. Powell. They would explain their predicaments and then abstain at the U.N., ensuring passage of a second decree. The traditionally wise and savvy German diplomats — conscious of everything from the Berlin Airlift to the American promise to pledge New York to preserve Bonn from a Soviet nuclear strike — would cherish American goodwill toward the German people, grimace somewhat, and then say something like: “We believe you are wrong; but we are not going to ruin a half-century of mutual amity over a two-bit fascist Iraq. So good luck, win, and let us pray that you, not we, are right — for both our sakes.”
A Turkish prime minister would learn from Tony Blair, and thus explain to his parliament the historic and critical relationship with the United States, while vigorously campaigning to win approval for our armored divisions to hit Iraq from the north to help shorten a controversial war.
Mexico and Canada would complain privately, but express North American solidarity. In other words, sober and sane Western statesmen would swallow their pique at a powerful United States acting unilaterally, seek to provide it diplomatic cover, and quietly accept that a removal of a mass-murdering dictator was in all liberal states’ interests.
Instead, just the opposite happened, and so we must eventually react to this radical realignment that brought it about.
We can start with those hosts of American military bases. Many Americans are now dead in part because a NATO ally Turkey not merely refused its support, but did so in such a long and drawn out fashion that it is impossible to believe that it was not preordained to hamper U.S. military operations. And, of course, Turkey’s last-minute refusals to allow transit of U.S. divisions did exactly that by delaying the critical rerouting of troops and supplies to the Gulf.
I would expect that we all will smile, still extend some minor aid, but simmer on the inside and quietly and professionally take steps to ensure that we are never put in such a position again. We should, without fanfare, bow out of Turkish-EU discussions, and let Europe and Turkey on their own decide the wisdom of allowing an Islamic country into the “liberal” European confederation. The EU can handle Cyprus. Who knows, maybe Brussels will be forced to reward Turkish recalcitrance toward America with renewed subsidies and membership — and who cares? So in the eleventh hour of this war, the democratic government of Turkey must pass some decree, if only symbolic, that they value our friendship and wish us to win in Iraq.
Ditto the erosion with the Saudi Arabian relationship even if, as I expect, we will soon hear from their sheiks with various proclamations of liberalization and greater freedom for their unfree. Bases that earn us enmity, cannot be adequately used when Americans die nearby, and are expensive political liabilities, are not military assets. And the paradox grows worse when bases exist through the pretexts that they in part help to protect the host country that does not wish to be protected.
We should smile, profess goodwill — and then withdraw all American troops from Saudi Arabia as soon as events settle down in Iraq, reassessing in a post-Cold War, post-9/11 world our entire relationship with that medieval country. After all, we buy oil from the worst of all dictatorships in Teheran and the people there like us better than do the Saudis precisely because we are not complicit in their government. The Saudis, of course, could still catch the train as it leaves the station, close the madrassas, and join the 21st century — but it is their call, not ours.
We are told that an Israeli-Palestinian solution will restore our good name in the Middle East. Maybe. But like the past spectacle of Palestinians cheering news of the 3,000 American dead, the recent West Bank volunteers who wish to go to Baghdad to blow up more Americans and protect another Arab fascist don’t play well in the United States — and make us wonder what our hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for the Palestinian Authority are for.
We must maintain cordial relations with Russia — but Russia has never had an accounting with tens of thousands of Communist apparatchiks who here and there inhabit the present government. This was a country, after all, which to the silence of the Arab and European worlds killed thousands of Muslims in Chechnya, rooted for the mass murderer Milosevic, allowed weapons to be sold to Saddam Hussein that would be used to kill Americans, and thwarted all our efforts in the U.N. Surely it is time for sobriety and circumspection in everything we do with them.
If we thought Turkey’s recent turnabout was depressing, imagine a South Korea when that crisis heats up, as thousands in Seoul take to the street to protest our presence as they are hours away from being annihilated by North Korean artillery. As soon as possible we should begin discussions about carefully drawing down troops and relocating them far to the south to compose a “strategic reserve” as tens of thousands of wealthy brave South Korean teenagers assume their exclusive place on the front-line to protect their own motherland from Korean Stalinists. And if we cannot convince China that it is time to rein in Pyongyang’s nukes, then we should throw up our hands and let Tokyo, Seoul — even Taiwan — do what is necessary to provide for their own strategic deterrence.
In the neighborhood of the battlefield, Iran is in a unique position. The illegitimate government will have to tell its own restless population why the liberation of Iraq next door is a bad thing. The unfortunate Iranians, scarred by a dirty war with Saddam Hussein, weary of mullocracy that they brought in themselves, will not be unhappy that the soldiers a decade ago who slaughtered them are losing, and the changes that are coming across the border are what they themselves want.
Syria, the embryo of most terrorist groups and the occupier of Lebanon, still issues empty threats. For all the scary rhetoric and promises of worldwide jihad, an impotent Syria must be terrified of the consequences should it send direct aid to Saddam Hussein. It is a historical rarity that 300,000 United States troops are at last fighting an Arab dictator with 70 percent of the American people’s support — and losing far fewer dead than those slaughtered in one day in their sleep in a barracks in Lebanon.
And then there is the madness of Europe. It is time to speak far more softly and carry a far larger stick. France may be right that we all have really come to the end of history — and so we should give them an opportunity to prove it, to match deed with word by being delighted as we withdraw troops from Germany. Germany may or may not be embracing the frightening old nationalist rhetoric — but again that will be France’s problem, not ours. Let us hope that the more sober in Germany can still grasp at what Mr. Schroeder has nearly thrown away, and see that few superpowers have given it so much and asked for so little in return — and genuinely wish it to do well.
But again it is their call, not ours. We do not have to withdraw from a dead NATO, but we should simply grin and spend as much on it as Europe does — and so let it die on the vine. How could we be allies with such countries as France and Germany when sizable minorities there want a fascistic Saddam Hussein to defeat us?
There is not much need to speak of the governments of Canada and Mexico. More liberal trade agreements and concessions with Mr. Chretien are about as dead as open borders are with Mr. Fox. It is the singular achievement of the present Canadian government to turn a country — whose armed forces once stormed an entire beach at Normandy and fielded one of the most heroic armies in wars for freedom — into a bastion of anti-Americanism without a military. Both countries are de facto socialist states, and the Anglo-French pique we see in Europe is right across our northern borders in miniature. Anyone who looked at the papers in Mexico City could rightly assume our neighbors’ elite preferred an Iraqi victory.
And so where does all that leave us? Unlike the conventional rhetoric of pessimists (e.g., “the world hates us”), we may well be in a stronger position than ever before. Russian arms, German bunkers, and French contracts will become known in Iraq and will be weighed against America’s use of overwhelming force for a moral cause in a legal and human fashion against a barbaric regime. The Middle Eastern claim that we won’t or can’t fight on the ground is a myth. And America, not the Orwellian Arab Street, is the catalyst for democratic reform. Looming on the horizon are Iraqi archives, the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and a happy liberated populace that Europe would have otherwise left well enough alone to profit from its overseers.
The United Nations has lost its soft spot in the hearts of Americans, and is more likely to appease dictators than aid consensual governments. The general-secretary should be scrambling madly before the armistice to win our good graces — never has American support for the U.N. been lower, even as a U.N. resolution has never been better enforced at almost no cost to its general membership. The debate has now spun out of control and questions not merely our own membership but also the very propriety of the residence of the General Assembly headquarters in New York.
And as for Britain, Australia, Spain, Denmark, Italy, and a host of Eastern European countries who are rolling down the tracks with us, waving to the exasperating at the station, we have to show them as much appreciation for their stalwart courage as we do abject disdain for the duplicity of their peers behind.
The world is upside down and we should expect some strange scenes of scrambling in the weeks ahead as side-glancing diplomats and nail-biting envoys flock to meet Mr. Powell in Washington, who — far from fearing those recent idiotic calls for his resignation — will in fact emerge as one of the most effective and powerful secretaries in recent history. Such are the ironies of war.
It will all be an interesting show.
Withdrawing from Germany and Saudia Arabia, as well as letting the Asians deal with North Korea sounds good to me.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2388 times:
Many Americans are now dead in part because a NATO ally Turkey not merely refused its support
Hey Vic, let's clear something up okay chief? Many Americans are now dead because a few guys in Washington , including your President, didn't have the imagination to deal with Saddam any other way than playing Erwin Rommel across the desert.
Many young Americans are now dead because Exxon/Mobil made all theright phone calls.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2372 times:
Although I'm not American, I agree with the article.
As a Canadian, I (and many others) are ashamed at our Fed Govt's lack of support for the US. I assure you that many Canadians cherish the US. There was a massive pro-US rally in Toronto on Friday that warm every American's heart.
As for US bases in South Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc......yup.....bring the boys & girls home. They aren't appreciated locally. Even in the event that North Korea invades South Korea, let South Korea deal with it.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
LOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2371 times:
"Hey Vic, let's clear something up okay chief? Many Americans are now dead because a few guys in Washington , including your President, didn't have the imagination to deal with Saddam any other way than playing Erwin Rommel across the desert.
Many young Americans are now dead because Exxon/Mobil made all theright phone calls."
What an ignorant statement. Do you truly believe this is all for oil?
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
The war is not about oil.
I'm attaching an article from the Daily Telegraph dated March 19th which explains this.
Goal is not oil
The Daily Telegraph
WASHINGTON - From Europe to the Middle East, you can hear the same charge: a war with Iraq is about America's plans to seize control of Baghdad's oil. Iraq, the argument runs, holds the second-largest oil reserves in the world -- a pool that America, with its insatiable greed for oil, dreams of tapping.
Today, Iraqi oil only trickles out because of punitive UN sanctions. What's more, Saddam Hussein prefers to do business with friends, so has assigned provisional oil rights to Russian, French and Chinese firms.
It seems obvious to placard-waving protesters that America needs a war to grab Iraqi oil. With a U.S. military governor or Iraqi puppet installed in Baghdad, they predict, America will tear up Russian and French contracts, handing the oil fields to ExxonMobil, Chevron and its chums.
There is one final twist to the charge: once Iraqi oil is in American hands, they say, world oil prices will plunge. That will break the Islamic stranglehold on America's oil imports, allowing Bush administration hawks to tell Saudi Arabia where to go.
The trouble is that this scenario is deeply flawed. It is based on misunderstandings of the world oil market, and several factual mistakes.
The Bush administration would go further, of course, and say it is deeply unfair. Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, recently promised that oil fields will be held "in trust" for the Iraqi people, with proceeds going toward the country's reconstruction.
At the Azores summit, George W. Bush, the U.S. President, yielded to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's call for Iraqi oil revenues to be held by the United Nations as an "interim" measure after the war.
Many in Europe, of course, do not set much store on American promises. Put trust to one side then, and stick to facts.
Since 1999, UN sanctions have placed no limit on how much oil Iraq can export. The UN only controls the use of Iraqi oil revenues. Under the oil-for-food scheme, proceeds from oil sales must be spent on humanitarian goods, war reparations to Kuwait and UN activities in Iraq. That angers Saddam, which is why he smuggles oil to neighbours and tries to collect illegal surcharges on the oil he exports.
The United States already buys lots of Iraqi oil. Last year, America bought an average of 449,000 barrels a day, or about a quarter of Iraq's production. The Arab world's stranglehold over America is exaggerated. Last year, Gulf nations accounted for 11% of America's daily consumption of 19.9 million barrels.
Oil is perhaps the most freely traded commodity on Earth, with oil flowing regardless of political enmities. Venezuela, run by a populist strongman who loathes Mr. Bush, is America's fourth-largest source of oil.
To quote Amy Myers Jaffe, a senior analyst at the James A Baker III Institute for Public Policy in Houston: "If the U.S. were to start buying oil only from people we like, we'd have to change our lifestyles."
The White House's position is that if it wanted Iraq's oil, it would simply lift sanctions and let the oil flow freely.
American analysts also reject talk of Big Oil dictating U.S. foreign policy. U.S. oil companies own several giant oilfields in Libya, but are barred from exploiting them by American sanctions, Ms. Jaffe noted.
"The UN has lifted sanctions on Libya, but we have not. If all President Bush was concerned about was American access to oil, he could wave his hand and lift U.S. sanctions, and you would get another million barrels of Libyan oil a day."
If rapid access to Iraqi oil drove American policy, Ms. Jaffe added, Washington would do better to lift sanctions.
"Ironically, for the 'no blood for oil' crowd, regime change might delay the day Iraqi oil floods on to the market, compared to ending sanctions. A war might cause much more damage to the fields."
Nobody is getting their hands on Iraq's reserves in the near future. Two decades of neglect and periodic war have left Saddam's oilfields badly damaged. According to most oil analysts, it will take years, and tens of billions of dollars in investment, to bring Iraqi production back to pre-war levels.
If there is an Iraqi bonanza for Western firms, it is likely to be for oil-service companies and engineers, not refiners.
Finally, private oil analysts and U.S. government advisors are far from agreed that oil prices will plunge after an Iraqi war.
War with Iraq, the experts agree, will have a huge effect on world oil prices. The hard part is getting them to agree what that effect will be.
There is near consensus that prices will soar sharply upwards on the day war breaks out.
"There is no question. If there is a war, prices will rocket. It's a gut reaction," said John Lichtblau, chairman of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation in New York.
"There's already a war premium at work -- prices are at US$32 a barrel; that's very high. It could go to almost anything for a few days."
Many analysts hope the American, Japanese and European governments will counter any price surge by releasing some of the 1.2 billion barrels of oil in state-owned reserves worldwide.
Dr. Philip Verleger, a U.S. government advisor on oil and foreign affairs, goes further, urging a massive release of reserves.
"You want to put a lot of oil on the market," he said. "If governments are reluctant, they're going to get themselves an economic catastrophe. They're going to get themselves US$50 oil."
State-held reserves are brim full, partly because war with Iraq has loomed for so long. America alone holds 600 million barrels in underground salt caverns in Louisiana and Texas.
"Under almost any circumstances, unless Iraq manages to take out some Saudi production for a long time, these stocks will last two or three years," said Dr. Verleger. "There is no reason to be at all cautious."
Analysts are confident Mr. Bush will heed such calls -- they point to the fate of his father, who saw oil prices rise to US$40 a barrel during the 1991 Gulf War, triggering a recession that some say cost him his presidency.
Yet an equally plausible scenario has oil prices crashing to historic lows before the end of this year.
So, curiously, though Iraq is at the centre of the crisis, its oil -- actual physical oil flowing from wells -- is a relatively minor factor, at least in the short term.
Iraqi oil production has slumped from 3.5 million barrels a day before 1990 to some two million barrels now.
The world consumes 77 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia alone produces eight million barrels and has plenty of spare capacity.
Mr. Lichtblau said: "If we had to, the world could do without Iraqi oil for years. Iraqi exports on their own are not a major factor."
The oil industry is nervous for other reasons. One fear is that a cornered Saddam Hussein will fight on for months, or attack his neighbours.
"If disruption goes beyond Iraq, then we are in trouble," said Mr. Lichtblau. "If Saudi production is blocked, or damaged, that's the nightmare of nightmares."
Even barring such disasters, the Iraq crisis comes at a bad time. Venezuela has spent months locked in a bitter general strike. Commercial oil stocks are also at near-record lows, for various complex reasons.
It could, of course, go the other way. The war in Iraq could be short, and America's victory crushing. If Venezuela returns to normal at the same time, the oil industry fears a price crash.
"If Iraqi oil becomes fully available by the second half of 2003, and Venezuela comes back, you could have US$20 oil," Mr. Lichtblau added.
"Everyone is in a state of suspended animation," Dr. Verleger said. "We hope it all turns out right, but it might not. We just don't know what might happen."
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
As a Canadian, I am not ashamed of the Canadian governments decision to stay out of the war. We stayed out of the Vietnam conflict too, and we all know how that turned out.....
There are many other reasons to disagree with our current administration of clowns, but I believe Chretien is right this time, whatever his motive.
What an ignorant statement. Do you truly believe this is all for oil?
I guess we'll just have to see if any Iraqi oil hits the American shores in the coming months. I for one forecast that a great deal of it will flow as the result of a "rebuild Iraq for oil" plan much like the food for oil plan France was involved with. Does that mean the US went to war for oil? guess that depends on how much the oil will eventually cost and how many US corporations will profit from the proceeds. Again I forecast a windfall for such companies as Halliburton (Cheney was former CEO) who have secured huge contracts to rebuild Iraq.
Halliburton, America's No. 1 oil-services company, is the nation's fifth-largest military contractor and the biggest non-union employer in the United States. Halliburton, under Cheney's command helped rebuild Iraq's oil fields that helped finance the build-up of WMDs. Ironic huh? http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15445
Tbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2240 times:
Well, if you dont read the article, you cant make statements about it. And I lose respect for you if you think you can make a valid opinion in this thread without bothering to read the article. Either of the articles at that. But you go ahead and state that they aren't legitimate.
Thumper From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2229 times:
MD-90: Great post,have to agree 100%, time to get out of the U.N. and N.A.T.O. How could anyone EVER trust France again.As far as Canada, Airplay is just a pimple on a Moose's a#s,most Canadians and Americans get along just fine,same with most Australians,except for the ones on this fourm.