| Subject: Re: "A curious sort of war" no? Proudly onside... |
Author:
Mike Redmond
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:26:27 03/31/03 Mon
Author Host/IP: NoHost/209.17.158.14
In reply to:
JC
's message, "Re: "A curious sort of war" no? Proudly onside..." on 20:13:51 03/30/03 Sun
I share the views of many that the decision to commence this war against Iraq was unwise and unnecessary. While Saddam's regime was, no doubt, in violation of a multitude of UN resolutions, and was almost certainly attempting to maintain a weapons program involving chemical and biological weapons, war was not the only option available to contain it.
I supported our party's position that action against Saddam should only be taken with the consent of the Security Council, and that it would be a grave mistake for the Americans to launch an attack without the clear support of the international community. The moral balance of the death and destruction of war was not matched by the potential harm that war would eventually deterr. As well, the outbreak of war without UN support risks seriously destabilizing not only the middle east, but the internaional order that has been in place since World War II.
But all those valid arguments against the war must now be re-evaluated in light of the current facts. War has broken out, and, however unwise or unnecessary it may have been, it is not something that can be called off.
Those demanding peace now must ask, how can this be accomplished? Is there any scenario in which it would now be acceptable for the American and British armies to simply withdraw, and restore the status quo ante bellum? I would suggest not. To leave Saddam in power, in circumstances which would only be described as a victory for him, would not only perpetuate an evil regime, and unleash hideous reprisals against the Kurds and others, but would make it virtually impossible to enforce any arms restrictions on him. The arms inspection regime was marginally effective when backed up with the threat of imminent war. An allied withdrawal short of victory would be a carte blanche for a renewal of Saddams plans for weapons of mass destruction.
The only hope for a return to stablity in this region, and any possibility of recreating some semblance of a return to multilateralism in international affairs is, ironically, a rapid and decisive victory by the allies over Iraq. The replacement of Saddam by an indigenous regime, the lifting of sanctions and the re-building of Iraq under a United Nations mandate would quell much of the hatred directed against the West and allay much of the suspicion of the motives of the United States.
If we agree that the defeat of Saddam is now the best option for the world, and we wish to bring the United States back into the realm of multilateralism, and if we wish to convince them that the best solution for all is to assert United Nations involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq, the question is how to accomplish that.
The issue of whether the war should have been commenced is now moot. The issue now is how it should be concluded. Canada was right to try to stop the war before it started. But it is pointless, and wrong to take a position that the war is justified, and the outcome of an allied victory desireable, but that without the consent of the Security Council we will not participate. That is simply putting procedure in place of principle.
We are constrained in what we could contribute to the allied cause at this point, simply by virtue of the sustained decay of our armed forces under the Martin/Chretien government. But if we did make the committment to help our allies, with whatever military, naval and air forces are at our disposal, we would not only be acting in our own interest, by helping to achieve the military goals we agree are desireable, we would be assisting in re-connecting the United States government with the value of multilateralism.
Those who are concerned about the apparent rise in American unilateralism must ask themselves who the United States will listen to more, a former ally that stands on the sidelines and offers nothing more than empty encouragement combined with empty lectures, or one that honestly points out the errors of our allies way, and yet stands side by side with that ally to achieve a common goal?
It may seem contradictory to question the wisdom of the war, but advocate its support at the same time.But we are not at a point where we have a choice among good scenarios. The options in front of us are all flawed, but taking up the cause of our allies, and guiding them back to the path of international solution-finding appears to be the least wrong.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 