Thanks for the messages about anti-war protest and the very good statement
by Senator Byrd (who, for those outside the US, is a fairly mainstream and
influential Democrat, perhaps even conservative by some standards).
I did notice that the CNN reporting of the protests and security council
seemed to shift by late Saturday from appallingly jingoistic to concerned
and prepared to consider possible negative consequences of a rush to war. I
think there is some indication that Blair in the UK is hesitating, and
there may be at least a few people around Bush who will sense political
trouble and a weakening (because originally merely manufactured) consensus
here. To the extent that Bush has failed to link Iraq and terrorism, and
failed to get international support for the war, people here are cautious
about the war and much more concerned about terrorism, in fact concerned
that Bush has neglected efforts to protect people enough (though that is
pretty hard to do, admittedly).
It can be politically disastrous for Bush to commit vast resources and
especially US lives if there is not a consensus within the country, or if
opinion could turn against him very quickly. Someone in Washington must
realize that.
I have also heard that the line about needing to attack soon to beat the
summer heat is merely propaganda and not a military fact. Anyone have any
information on this?
Any way out? Bush can't just bring back the US troops now over there
without looking like the fool he is and the failure he may be seen to be.
He would be politically dead. The only option I see is for the UN to create
an international peace-keeping force, for Iraq to accept it, and for some
sizeable fraction of the US forces to join it, with the rest hanging around
a few months to see if it works, and going home if not needed.
All the other scenarios seem far worse ... a US attack and indefinite
occupation without UN support would invite all the disasters Byrd outlined
... a quick effort to remove Saddam's clique and get out fast, as in
Afghanistan, isn't likely to succeed and would still destabilize a lot ...
a US attack that was outright condemned by the UN or by a significant
number of nations would create its own longterm mess, but might lead to a
UN peace-keeping force to supplement and eventually replace a US occupation
... and I actually think this is the most likely outcome, because I doubt
the UN would approve such a force before a US attack, though I do think
that would be better.
For a government that came to power with no electoral mandate, and one so
obviously overpopulated with dim lights, this new imperialism is worse than
outrageous and stupid policy, it is arrogantly autocratic. What Byrd did
not say is that the US Congress has fled Washington in the wake of the
deliberate scare news about terrorism announced to them last week,
conveniently leaving no one to say no to Bush.
Except us.
JAY.
Jay Lemke
Professor
University of Michigan
School of Education
610 East University
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel. 734-763-9276
Email. JayLemke@UMich.edu
Website. www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PST