A New World Order?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/886929.asp?cp1=1
A New World Order?
Bush's 48-hour warning was directed at Saddam Hussein.
But the ultimatum has long-term implications for Iran
and North Korea as well
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
March 18 - Sometimes the glare of the moment is
so sharp that it's hard to see two steps ahead. Yet
President Bush's address to the world on Monday went
far beyond the blinding flash of war. While we were
all trying to focus on Bush's warnings to Iraq-and
especially on the fate of Saddam Hussein and his
sons-Bush was mapping out an even bigger, bolder
vision for the whole planet.
FOR SIX LONG months of painful diplomacy, the
administration has veered between two policies:
disarmament and regime change. In theory, both have
the same goal-to eliminate the threat of weapons of
mass destruction. But in practice, they could not be
more different in how they are executed and how they
impact the rest of the world.
Over all those months of internal debate and
international wrangling, the administration-and other
governments-was really grappling with a simple
question: is it possible to disarm or restrain a
hostile regime peacefully? If the answer is yes, then
you might support weapons inspectors, sanctions and
the work of the United Nations. If the answer is no,
you might as well get ready for several more wars.
That was the unmistakable message from
President Bush to several countries beyond Iraq's
borders. "In this century, when evil men plot
chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of
appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never
before seen on this earth," he explained. "Responding
to such enemies only after they have struck first is
not self-defense. It is suicide."
Many commentators have suggested that Bush
only woke up to this threat after the 9-11 attacks 18
months ago. In fact, the nightmare of evil men
(dictators or terrorists) armed with such weapons has
always been one of his recurring themes, stretching
back to the start of his presidential campaign in
1999. The big difference before 9-11 was that Bush
used the prospect of such evil to rally support for a
system of national missile defense. Another difference
is that nobody took him-or the threats he was
describing-seriously.
Now Bush raises the prospect of Saddam as the
arch-terrorist and we all take notice. "If Saddam
Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
deadly foe until the end," Bush said. "In desperation,
he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist
operations against the American people and our
friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are,
however, possible.
"And this very fact underscores the reason we
cannot live under the threat of blackmail."
In reality, this argument is far less about
hard facts than simple fears. Indeed the
administration's attempts to link Saddam to terrorists
have proved the most controversial of all the
arguments made to justify war. Even as the
administration suggested overlaps between Iraq and Al
Qaeda, senior officials said there was no evidence of
any joint operations or planning.
Moreover, those same officials conceded that
other nations, such as Iran, were far closer to
terrorist groups and had a proven track record of
planning and supporting terrorist attacks on American
targets as well as U.S. allies. As for blackmail,
Saddam's bluster has never even come close to a
credible attempt. Most of his vastly over-inflated
threats appear designed to impress his own terrified
people.
So what are we left with in terms of the
facts? That Saddam "will remain a deadly foe until the
end." That is unquestionably true: Saddam is indeed a
deadly foe. But then, so is Kim Jong Il of North
Korea, so are the security forces in Iran and so are
the dictators of Libya and Syria. They are all on
notice now-as long as the war in Iraq goes according
to plan.
In all these countries, Bush's speech will be
read closely to understand what may happen after Iraq.
And their responses will be tuned accordingly. Will
Iran and North Korea speed up their nuclear and
missile programs? Or will their repressive regimes
collapse at the first sight of American force? In case
you're wondering about the official analysis, the
administration is already assuming the crisis in Korea
will escalate. Senior officials who deal with North
Korea expect Kim Jong Il to test-fire more missiles as
soon as the war begins in Iraq.
So how are we to understand Bush's insistence
that he will seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis
in North Korea and the threat of Iran's nuclear
programs? Can we square those comments with his speech
on Saddam's fate?
Bush's senior aides say nothing has changed.
They even suggest that the train wreck at the United
Nations will have no impact on the international
diplomacy required to deal with Iran and North Korea.
Pointing to existing agreements, including the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT), one senior official
said: "The fact that the Security Council has this
particular problem with respect to the French doesn't
mean that you can't have international solutions to
these international problems. The president has said
this to French President Jacques Chirac and Chirac has
said the same thing. We disagree on this issue. It has
gone a little out of hand, largely on the French side.
But that isn't to say there aren't other issues where
we are going to cooperate."
They are nice words, presidentially-speaking.
Of course both leaders insist they can set aside these
small issues like war. Of course they can forget all
about the mudslinging and mutual recrimination. But
it's hard to imagine they can really agree on how to
deal with other evil regimes-regimes with greater
links to terrorism and far more advanced weapons
programs. After all, it wasn't just the French. At the
United Nations, both the Russians and the Chinese also
balked at the prospect of a new world order where the
United States was taking down regimes that might one
day pose a serious threat to peace.
At the time-when the administration was still
pursuing diplomacy-U.S. officials suggested that
criticism was a slippery excuse for inaction on Iraq.
It often looked that way. But now Bush has made his
policy of regime change clear and is setting about the
second phase of a new world order, after the victory
in Afghanistan. Whatever happens in Iraq, the world
may never be the same again.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
*********************************************
http://www.msnbc.com/news/886929.asp?cp1=1
A New World Order?
Bush's 48-hour warning was directed at Saddam Hussein.
But the ultimatum has long-term implications for Iran
and North Korea as well
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE
March 18 - Sometimes the glare of the moment is
so sharp that it's hard to see two steps ahead. Yet
President Bush's address to the world on Monday went
far beyond the blinding flash of war. While we were
all trying to focus on Bush's warnings to Iraq-and
especially on the fate of Saddam Hussein and his
sons-Bush was mapping out an even bigger, bolder
vision for the whole planet.
FOR SIX LONG months of painful diplomacy, the
administration has veered between two policies:
disarmament and regime change. In theory, both have
the same goal-to eliminate the threat of weapons of
mass destruction. But in practice, they could not be
more different in how they are executed and how they
impact the rest of the world.
Over all those months of internal debate and
international wrangling, the administration-and other
governments-was really grappling with a simple
question: is it possible to disarm or restrain a
hostile regime peacefully? If the answer is yes, then
you might support weapons inspectors, sanctions and
the work of the United Nations. If the answer is no,
you might as well get ready for several more wars.
That was the unmistakable message from
President Bush to several countries beyond Iraq's
borders. "In this century, when evil men plot
chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of
appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never
before seen on this earth," he explained. "Responding
to such enemies only after they have struck first is
not self-defense. It is suicide."
Many commentators have suggested that Bush
only woke up to this threat after the 9-11 attacks 18
months ago. In fact, the nightmare of evil men
(dictators or terrorists) armed with such weapons has
always been one of his recurring themes, stretching
back to the start of his presidential campaign in
1999. The big difference before 9-11 was that Bush
used the prospect of such evil to rally support for a
system of national missile defense. Another difference
is that nobody took him-or the threats he was
describing-seriously.
Now Bush raises the prospect of Saddam as the
arch-terrorist and we all take notice. "If Saddam
Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a
deadly foe until the end," Bush said. "In desperation,
he and terrorist groups might try to conduct terrorist
operations against the American people and our
friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are,
however, possible.
"And this very fact underscores the reason we
cannot live under the threat of blackmail."
In reality, this argument is far less about
hard facts than simple fears. Indeed the
administration's attempts to link Saddam to terrorists
have proved the most controversial of all the
arguments made to justify war. Even as the
administration suggested overlaps between Iraq and Al
Qaeda, senior officials said there was no evidence of
any joint operations or planning.
Moreover, those same officials conceded that
other nations, such as Iran, were far closer to
terrorist groups and had a proven track record of
planning and supporting terrorist attacks on American
targets as well as U.S. allies. As for blackmail,
Saddam's bluster has never even come close to a
credible attempt. Most of his vastly over-inflated
threats appear designed to impress his own terrified
people.
So what are we left with in terms of the
facts? That Saddam "will remain a deadly foe until the
end." That is unquestionably true: Saddam is indeed a
deadly foe. But then, so is Kim Jong Il of North
Korea, so are the security forces in Iran and so are
the dictators of Libya and Syria. They are all on
notice now-as long as the war in Iraq goes according
to plan.
In all these countries, Bush's speech will be
read closely to understand what may happen after Iraq.
And their responses will be tuned accordingly. Will
Iran and North Korea speed up their nuclear and
missile programs? Or will their repressive regimes
collapse at the first sight of American force? In case
you're wondering about the official analysis, the
administration is already assuming the crisis in Korea
will escalate. Senior officials who deal with North
Korea expect Kim Jong Il to test-fire more missiles as
soon as the war begins in Iraq.
So how are we to understand Bush's insistence
that he will seek a diplomatic solution to the crisis
in North Korea and the threat of Iran's nuclear
programs? Can we square those comments with his speech
on Saddam's fate?
Bush's senior aides say nothing has changed.
They even suggest that the train wreck at the United
Nations will have no impact on the international
diplomacy required to deal with Iran and North Korea.
Pointing to existing agreements, including the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty (NPT), one senior official
said: "The fact that the Security Council has this
particular problem with respect to the French doesn't
mean that you can't have international solutions to
these international problems. The president has said
this to French President Jacques Chirac and Chirac has
said the same thing. We disagree on this issue. It has
gone a little out of hand, largely on the French side.
But that isn't to say there aren't other issues where
we are going to cooperate."
They are nice words, presidentially-speaking.
Of course both leaders insist they can set aside these
small issues like war. Of course they can forget all
about the mudslinging and mutual recrimination. But
it's hard to imagine they can really agree on how to
deal with other evil regimes-regimes with greater
links to terrorism and far more advanced weapons
programs. After all, it wasn't just the French. At the
United Nations, both the Russians and the Chinese also
balked at the prospect of a new world order where the
United States was taking down regimes that might one
day pose a serious threat to peace.
At the time-when the administration was still
pursuing diplomacy-U.S. officials suggested that
criticism was a slippery excuse for inaction on Iraq.
It often looked that way. But now Bush has made his
policy of regime change clear and is setting about the
second phase of a new world order, after the victory
in Afghanistan. Whatever happens in Iraq, the world
may never be the same again.
© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
*********************************************
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right
to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
****************************************
http://www.patriotsforpeace.org/
http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/
http://www.truemajority.org/
http://www.notinourname.net/
http://www.endthewar.org/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.peacepledge.org/
http://www.citiesforpeace.org/
******************************
Ain't Karma A Bitch!
-- Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
****************************************
http://www.patriotsforpeace.org/
http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/
http://www.truemajority.org/
http://www.notinourname.net/
http://www.endthewar.org/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.peacepledge.org/
http://www.citiesforpeace.org/
******************************
Ain't Karma A Bitch!
