Guerra senza l'Onu?
Se ve la cavate un pochiiiiino con l'inglese (il necessario per leggerlo e capirlo, con un dizionario per trovare i termini conosciuti), e se vi interessa una analisi della situazione ad un livello superiore a quella dei vari De Michelis, Ferrara, Lerner, Rutelli, Edward Luttwak, Max BIaggi e Fisichella, Clarissa Burt e Renato Mannheimer (che non se ne puo' piu' delle loro ovvieta'...) questo e' quello che Immanuel Wallerstein scriveva il primo settembre, in uno dei suoi "Commentaries" bi-mensili che pubblica sul suo sito.
La situazione si e' evoluta in questi 10 giorni, e il 15 uscira' un altro "commentary", per il momento se vi va leggete questo, il tono e' chiaro, semplice, diretto, e si traduce in un attimo:
"George W. Bush, Principal Agent of Osama bin Laden"
Osama bin Laden made it clear on Sept. 11 that he wished to harm the United States grievously, and to bring down "bad Muslim" governments, most particularly those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. George W. Bush is working overtime to help him achieve both these goals. Indeed, one might say that, without George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden would not be able to achieve these objectives, at least in any short time horizon.
George W. Bush is preparing to invade Iraq. The opposition to this move is becoming impressive. First, within the United States, two groups have become very vocal in the last few weeks. One is what are referred to as the "old Bushies," that is, George W. Bush's father and those who were his closest advisors. We have had very strong warnings from James A. Baker, Brent Snowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger - all part of the inner circle of the first President Bush's administration - that an invasion now, without UN authorization, is unwise, and furthermore unnecessary, and can only have negative consequences for the United States.
Then there is the opposition of the military. Brent Snowcroft is of course a former general. In addition we have heard from Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the U.S. troops in the Gulf War, Anthony Zinni, who commanded all U.S. troops in the Middle East and has been this administration's mediator in Israel/Palestine, and Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the Kosovo operation. They all say that it will not be militarily easy, that it is not militarily necessary at this time, and that it will have negative consequences for the United States. It is believed these retired military leaders speak for many who are still serving.
Add to this Richard Armey, the Republican Majority Leader in the House, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam veteran and Republican Senator from Nebraska. This adds up to powerful internal opposition to the proposed Bush adventure. Note that there are no Democrats on this list. The Democrats have been extraordinarily and shamefully timid throughout the debate.
Then there is the opposition from the friends and allies of the United States. The Canadians say they haven't seen the evidence that would justify an invasion.
The Germans say they definitely won't send troops. The Russians have spent the last several weeks having very ostentatious discussions with all three members of the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The "moderate" Arab countries are falling over each other to say that they won't allow their territory to be used for an attack on Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar. The Kurds refused to come to a meeting of the Iraqi opposition held under U.S. auspices in the U.S.
And even in Great Britain, the U.S. is running into trouble. Yes, Tony Blair seems unflaggingly loyal, although he is complaining that the U.S. is not giving him anything to help him (that is, concrete evidence that he can show others). A majority of British citizens are opposed to military action, and Blair refuses to allow a discussion in the British cabinet because he knows of strong opposition there, first of all from Robin Cook.
Yes, George W. Bush does have a few staunch supporters - Ariel Sharon and Tom DeLay. But that's about it. What does the U.S. administration say in response to the criticisms? George W. Bush himself belittles the debate as a "frenzy" and says that no decision has yet been made, which no one believes. Vice-President Cheney says that, even if Saddam Hussein were now to accept the return of inspectors, he should still be overthrown (a position that even Tony Blair finds unacceptable). And Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says that when the U.S. decides what it is right to do, and does it, others will follow. This, he says, is what we mean by leadership.
The point is that, from the point of view of the hawks, which now includes George W. Bush himself, opposition is irrelevant. They are actually happier to go ahead without any one else pitching in to help. What they wish to demonstrate is that no one can defy the U.S. government and get away with it. They wish to overthrow Saddam Hussein, no matter what he does or others say, because Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the United States. The hawks believe that, only by crushing Saddam, can they persuade the rest of the world that the U.S. is top dog and should be obeyed in every way. That is why they are also pushing the mad idea of getting other countries to sign bilateral agreements with the United States, guaranteeing special treatment for U.S. citizens in matters within the purview of the newly-established International Criminal Court. The principle here is the same. The U.S. cannot be subject to international law, for it is top dog.
Of course, what all the opposition is saying - the friendly opposition, not that of Al-Qaeda - is that the United States is shooting itself in the foot, and in the process, is going to cause enormous damage to everyone else. Aside from the fact that the proposed action is illegal under international law (invading a country is aggression, and aggression is a war crime), it is foolish.
Let us look at the three possible outcomes of an invasion. The U.S. may win swiftly and easily, with minimal loss of life. The U.S. may win after a long, exhausting war, with considerable loss of life. The U.S. may lose, as in Vietnam, and may be forced to withdraw from Iraq after considerable loss of life. Swift and easy victory, obviously the hope of the U.S. administration, is the least likely. I give it one chance in twenty.
Winning after a long exhausting war is the most likely, perhaps two chances out of three. And actually losing, incredible as it seems (but then it seemed so in Vietnam too), is a plausible outcome, one chance in three.
In any case, any of the three outcomes damages the national interests of the United States. Suppose the U.S. wins easily and rapidly. It will impress the entire world, intimidate the entire world, and scare the living daylights out of the entire world. Nothing will guarantee a more rapid loss of U.S. real political influence in the world, and first of all among our allies and friends, than this outcome so desired by the hawks in the U.S. government. The hawks argue that it will restore U.S. power. In fact, it will devastate it. We will be friendless, with a few sycophants and a vast majority of countries seething resentment.
And then there's the problem of what we do next after the easy victory. We have promised Turkey and Jordan and probably Saudi Arabia that we will not allow Iraq to disintegrate. But can we keep the promise?
Yes, if we send in a U.S. proconsul and at least 200,000 troops for long-term occupation of the country (as in Japan after 1945). But we have no intention of doing this, and the idea would have very negative consequences for the U.S. administration at home. A post-invasion Iraq would be something like Bosnia in the early 1990s - prey to internal and external ethnicizing forces. As for Iran, the U.S. can't decide if it wants her on its side or wishes to invade Iran next. In any case, Iran will take every advantage of a defeated Iraq that it can, and Iran would indeed welcome a disintegration.
The so-called moderate Arab states have been screaming that a U.S. invasion will hurt first of all their regimes, which may not survive, and will make virtually impossible what is already remote, any settlement in Israel/Palestine. This seems so obvious that one wonders how the U.S. administration can have any doubts about it. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian hawks will be infinitely strengthened, and less ready than ever to consider any arrangements, no matter who proposes them.
Then there is the most probable outcome - a long, drawn-out bloody war. Iraq may well be "bombed into the stone age," as impetuous hawks often dream. They may even be "nuked into the stone age." In the process, Iraq will launch whatever terrible weapons they have. These may be less numerous and powerful than U.S. propaganda asserts, but even a few, not so powerful weapons could wreak immense human damage all over the region (and of course first of all in Israel).
The body bags will give rise to envenomed civil strife in the U.S. The economic costs of warfare, as well as the impact on the world's oil supply, will do the same kind of long-term damage to the U.S. relative position in the world-economy as did the Vietnam War. And if we are saddled with the moral blame of adding new nuclear bombings to those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it may take 50 years to calm world opinion. And then, when we've finally won, we'll have the same problem of what to do next and even less inclination to do it.
The third possible outcome - defeat - is so awesome that one hesitates to think how future generations will judge it. They will probably blame most the inability of anybody in Washington to reflect on this as a serious possibility. The psychiatrists call this denial.
Could Osama bin Laden ask for more?
Immanuel Wallerstein
La situazione si e' evoluta in questi 10 giorni, e il 15 uscira' un altro "commentary", per il momento se vi va leggete questo, il tono e' chiaro, semplice, diretto, e si traduce in un attimo:
"George W. Bush, Principal Agent of Osama bin Laden"
Osama bin Laden made it clear on Sept. 11 that he wished to harm the United States grievously, and to bring down "bad Muslim" governments, most particularly those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. George W. Bush is working overtime to help him achieve both these goals. Indeed, one might say that, without George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden would not be able to achieve these objectives, at least in any short time horizon.
George W. Bush is preparing to invade Iraq. The opposition to this move is becoming impressive. First, within the United States, two groups have become very vocal in the last few weeks. One is what are referred to as the "old Bushies," that is, George W. Bush's father and those who were his closest advisors. We have had very strong warnings from James A. Baker, Brent Snowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger - all part of the inner circle of the first President Bush's administration - that an invasion now, without UN authorization, is unwise, and furthermore unnecessary, and can only have negative consequences for the United States.
Then there is the opposition of the military. Brent Snowcroft is of course a former general. In addition we have heard from Norman Schwarzkopf, who led the U.S. troops in the Gulf War, Anthony Zinni, who commanded all U.S. troops in the Middle East and has been this administration's mediator in Israel/Palestine, and Wesley Clark, who commanded NATO forces in the Kosovo operation. They all say that it will not be militarily easy, that it is not militarily necessary at this time, and that it will have negative consequences for the United States. It is believed these retired military leaders speak for many who are still serving.
Add to this Richard Armey, the Republican Majority Leader in the House, and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Vietnam veteran and Republican Senator from Nebraska. This adds up to powerful internal opposition to the proposed Bush adventure. Note that there are no Democrats on this list. The Democrats have been extraordinarily and shamefully timid throughout the debate.
Then there is the opposition from the friends and allies of the United States. The Canadians say they haven't seen the evidence that would justify an invasion.
The Germans say they definitely won't send troops. The Russians have spent the last several weeks having very ostentatious discussions with all three members of the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The "moderate" Arab countries are falling over each other to say that they won't allow their territory to be used for an attack on Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar. The Kurds refused to come to a meeting of the Iraqi opposition held under U.S. auspices in the U.S.
And even in Great Britain, the U.S. is running into trouble. Yes, Tony Blair seems unflaggingly loyal, although he is complaining that the U.S. is not giving him anything to help him (that is, concrete evidence that he can show others). A majority of British citizens are opposed to military action, and Blair refuses to allow a discussion in the British cabinet because he knows of strong opposition there, first of all from Robin Cook.
Yes, George W. Bush does have a few staunch supporters - Ariel Sharon and Tom DeLay. But that's about it. What does the U.S. administration say in response to the criticisms? George W. Bush himself belittles the debate as a "frenzy" and says that no decision has yet been made, which no one believes. Vice-President Cheney says that, even if Saddam Hussein were now to accept the return of inspectors, he should still be overthrown (a position that even Tony Blair finds unacceptable). And Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld says that when the U.S. decides what it is right to do, and does it, others will follow. This, he says, is what we mean by leadership.
The point is that, from the point of view of the hawks, which now includes George W. Bush himself, opposition is irrelevant. They are actually happier to go ahead without any one else pitching in to help. What they wish to demonstrate is that no one can defy the U.S. government and get away with it. They wish to overthrow Saddam Hussein, no matter what he does or others say, because Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the United States. The hawks believe that, only by crushing Saddam, can they persuade the rest of the world that the U.S. is top dog and should be obeyed in every way. That is why they are also pushing the mad idea of getting other countries to sign bilateral agreements with the United States, guaranteeing special treatment for U.S. citizens in matters within the purview of the newly-established International Criminal Court. The principle here is the same. The U.S. cannot be subject to international law, for it is top dog.
Of course, what all the opposition is saying - the friendly opposition, not that of Al-Qaeda - is that the United States is shooting itself in the foot, and in the process, is going to cause enormous damage to everyone else. Aside from the fact that the proposed action is illegal under international law (invading a country is aggression, and aggression is a war crime), it is foolish.
Let us look at the three possible outcomes of an invasion. The U.S. may win swiftly and easily, with minimal loss of life. The U.S. may win after a long, exhausting war, with considerable loss of life. The U.S. may lose, as in Vietnam, and may be forced to withdraw from Iraq after considerable loss of life. Swift and easy victory, obviously the hope of the U.S. administration, is the least likely. I give it one chance in twenty.
Winning after a long exhausting war is the most likely, perhaps two chances out of three. And actually losing, incredible as it seems (but then it seemed so in Vietnam too), is a plausible outcome, one chance in three.
In any case, any of the three outcomes damages the national interests of the United States. Suppose the U.S. wins easily and rapidly. It will impress the entire world, intimidate the entire world, and scare the living daylights out of the entire world. Nothing will guarantee a more rapid loss of U.S. real political influence in the world, and first of all among our allies and friends, than this outcome so desired by the hawks in the U.S. government. The hawks argue that it will restore U.S. power. In fact, it will devastate it. We will be friendless, with a few sycophants and a vast majority of countries seething resentment.
And then there's the problem of what we do next after the easy victory. We have promised Turkey and Jordan and probably Saudi Arabia that we will not allow Iraq to disintegrate. But can we keep the promise?
Yes, if we send in a U.S. proconsul and at least 200,000 troops for long-term occupation of the country (as in Japan after 1945). But we have no intention of doing this, and the idea would have very negative consequences for the U.S. administration at home. A post-invasion Iraq would be something like Bosnia in the early 1990s - prey to internal and external ethnicizing forces. As for Iran, the U.S. can't decide if it wants her on its side or wishes to invade Iran next. In any case, Iran will take every advantage of a defeated Iraq that it can, and Iran would indeed welcome a disintegration.
The so-called moderate Arab states have been screaming that a U.S. invasion will hurt first of all their regimes, which may not survive, and will make virtually impossible what is already remote, any settlement in Israel/Palestine. This seems so obvious that one wonders how the U.S. administration can have any doubts about it. Both the Israeli and the Palestinian hawks will be infinitely strengthened, and less ready than ever to consider any arrangements, no matter who proposes them.
Then there is the most probable outcome - a long, drawn-out bloody war. Iraq may well be "bombed into the stone age," as impetuous hawks often dream. They may even be "nuked into the stone age." In the process, Iraq will launch whatever terrible weapons they have. These may be less numerous and powerful than U.S. propaganda asserts, but even a few, not so powerful weapons could wreak immense human damage all over the region (and of course first of all in Israel).
The body bags will give rise to envenomed civil strife in the U.S. The economic costs of warfare, as well as the impact on the world's oil supply, will do the same kind of long-term damage to the U.S. relative position in the world-economy as did the Vietnam War. And if we are saddled with the moral blame of adding new nuclear bombings to those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it may take 50 years to calm world opinion. And then, when we've finally won, we'll have the same problem of what to do next and even less inclination to do it.
The third possible outcome - defeat - is so awesome that one hesitates to think how future generations will judge it. They will probably blame most the inability of anybody in Washington to reflect on this as a serious possibility. The psychiatrists call this denial.
Could Osama bin Laden ask for more?
Immanuel Wallerstein
Commenta