Sane man !

Friday, April 21, 2006

No peace in our time

Scott Ritter sums up the crux of the Iraq/n matter really well:

That’s why when I speak of Iran, I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change. It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam. With Iran, we are creating the perception of a noncompliant Iran, a threatening Iran. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. Now that we have successfully created that perception, the Bush administration will move forward aggressively until it achieves its ultimate objective, which is regime change.

That's what I keep coming back to and is little mentioned, particuarly amongst anti-war folks. The "containment of Saddam didn't work" and "would you have let him in power?" are critiques that come often, but the answer is that the situation was frame for a bad outcome and that all peaceful diplomatic options were more or less subtly aborted. This is what I sensed during the Bustani affair and made me oppose the war.

The latter affair was apparently on the behest of John Bolton, the moustachioed twit that keeps blabbering on about the weakness of the UN and how it constrains the US etc. But as in this case he is part of the problem.

If the UN is weak it's precisely because the big 5 permanents of the (so-called) security council castrate it for their own geopolitical reasons.
The UN has no army and no power! Well who will fund and provide that army: does anyone expect the big powers to relinquish theirs?
The UN could do nothing about Saddam! It could not do the right thing because it didn't fit the plans of the US. All peaceful paths were blocked, the inspectors taken out and regime change was then inevitable, despite the best efforts of rational people.


Post a Comment

<< Home