The Question is: What Happened Diplomatically?
We are a young nation, a powerful and gifted people, yet what happened in six months to divide the world so greatly on this issue? We have made a great deal of noise about the resistance by the French. Our congressional body even required "French" fries to be renamed "Freedom" fries. How did a united world become so divided over the issue of disarmning this undeniably brutal dictator?
We have captured a key quote from President Bush's address to the world on March 17th. We believe that herein lies the crucial point in this debate
[download video clip]. Bush claims, "The terrorist threat to America, and the world, will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
If Bush's assumption is correct, who would not support disarming Saddam? Not one advanced country, not one rational citizen, prefers to live under the threat of terrorism. Americans do not; Canadians and Mexicans do not; and certainly, the French, Germans and Russians do not. How could anyone fail to support President Bush's call to action?
The reason is simple: many world leaders do not agree that disarming Saddam by use of military force will lead to a safer world. The record is clear, Bush was unable to convince our neighors, i.e., Canada and Mexico, or key members of the UN Security Council, i.e., the French, Germans or Russians, to rush toward a military solution.
President Bush claims correctly that Saddam had twelve years to disarm fully. While Saddam argues he has, world experts agree it is unlikely. Again, why was Bush unable to convince the world of the need for immediate military action? We find the answer in the events of September 11th. Bush stood at Ground Zero, a direct witness to the horror of that tragic terrorist attack. We all agree -- even leaders of Canada, Mexico, France, Germany and Russia -- that this attack was unacceptable, and that future attacks are equally unacceptable.
If there is again unanimity on this issue, why then is the world opposed to Bush's plan to depose Saddam? To answer this question requires a deeper understanding of the roots of terror, and a more sophisticated review of the Arab/Muslim world.
Simply put, Saddam is not linked to Osama bin Laden or the al Qaeda network. President Bush has attempted numerous times to force a connection between these two, but experts around the world agree it is not a valid conclusion. And, in fact, Bush's sophomoric argument increases the danger to America. His flawed allegations make ALL Americans, and American icons, targets of future terror.
Osama bin Laden derives from Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 highjackers on 9/11 were Saudis. Should we conclude ALL Saudis are terrorists? No, obviously not. In fact, the Bush administration continues warm relations with this nation, its leaders and the Saudi people. Although there are experts who claim this is an irrational position, citing numerous ties to al Qaeda and Osama, America does not generalize a Saudi link to terror. Yet the facts are clear, the Wahhabi sect of the Muslim religion appears to be extremely anti-American. The source of this sect is Saudi Arabia. The 9/11 highjackers derive from this group. They want Americans interests, particularly the American military, off Saudi soil. This is a critical issue with Osama bin Laden. This faction perceives our presence as "neo-colonialism" or as an imperialistic extension of our national interests.
Saddam Hussein does not harbor hatred toward Americans, as documented in important public statements by Saddam
(see Developing an Understanding of Iraq). These documents make it clear there is serious tension in the region, yet Iraqi concerns are focused on Israel, and specifically, on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Does that mean we exempt Saddam from his responsibilities? No, absolutely not. We illustrate this distinction to demonstrate the division in Middle Eastern politics, particularly among the Muslim nations.
Historically, Osama bin Laden has not been concerned about the plight of the Palestinians. He has been narrowly focused on ridding Saudi Arabia of American interests. Only recently has he attempted to champion the Palestinian cause. And, herein lies the danger of President Bush's failure. By using military force to depose Saddam, he might unite radical Muslims against America.
It seems ALL the world now has heard the term, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). These include nuclear, biological and chemical devices that lethally kill thousands. President Bush is correct to want to rid Saddam of these weapons. The world might be a better place if all nations did the same. And, herein rests the complexities of the Middle East. Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons -- and they're not supposed to.
Under international law and United Nation's policy, the nuclear family of seven is "closed" to new members, the seven being the U.S., China, Russia, France, Britain, India and Pakistan. Recently, there has been great fanfare about the announcement N. Korea might have one or two. Experts have believed this for years. Yet Israel is known to have more than one or two. Current information suggests Israel has anywhere from 100 to 200 nuclear devices! This is why Saddam wants WMDs. He wants to balance Israel's military might in the region.
Muslims and Jews have suffered great tensions in the Middle East for over a thousand years. Yet Osama bin Laden is a wild card. He is not rooted in this historic dispute. The U.S. created Osama and his bandits during our secret actions against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This terror group is a by-product of the Cold War. When the conflict in Afghanistan ended, the soldiers had no where to go -- and few skills except as mercenary soldiers. They were ripe to be exploited a second time by the political ambitions of Osama bin Laden.
If one has a frank discussion with any Muslim group, they quickly learn there is little sympathy for Osama bin Laden, yet highly mixed concerns regarding the Palestinian crisis. It would be wrong to suggest there is a consensus among Muslims on this topic, anymore than one would expect Americans to agree fully on health care or any other important issue. Yet, undeniably, Muslims are likely to feel there is a lack of balance in the way the United States deals with Israel and the Palestinians -- with the scale favoring Israel. This is a very dangerous perception.
Turn on the TV and witness this yourself. Almost daily there is a news story about the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. Palestinians remain armed with rocks, sticks and rely on suicide bombers in their effort to obtain freedom. The Israelis are heavily armed -- using American tanks, helicopters and fighter jets. The link between the U.S. and Israel is becoming increasingly enhanced. By taking military action to rid Saddam of WMDs, while allowing Israel to maintain their arsenal (in what appears to be a "unilateral" action by the U.S. or at least an action driven by U.S. interests), America only increases the perception that we oppose Muslims in the region, as well as around the world.
Further, an Iraqi invasion maintains the appearance of continued American imperialism. Whether it actually is or not becomes irrelevant. The chants of "No War for Oil" are now etched in minds around the world. And, this (real or perceived) imperialistic action ties in with the political messages of Osama bin Laden. President Bush, by disregarding the warning of the international community in regard to Iraq, makes America, and Americans, the enemy of both factions within the Muslim community: those who support the anti-Imperialistic calls from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda; and those who oppose U.S. support for Israel.
There's an old saying, "the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend." By plunging headlong into a war with Saddam, who actively supports the Palestinian cause, we risk alienating millions of Muslims who have preferred to remain on the sideline in both disputes. These individuals have shown no love for Osama bin Laden's anti-Imperialism calls to free Saudi Arabia, nor have they been deeply riveted to the conflict in Palestine. Yet experts now agree the proposed military engagement by U.S. forces risks stimulating tremendous anti-American sentiment.
SOLUTIONS
On March 14, 2003, President Bush made a feeble attempt to address this growing concern by publicly announcing a renewed commitment to a "Road Map for Peace" between Israel and the Palestinians. This is too little, too late. Bush must diffuse the escalating tension before turning to Iraq. This is what world leaders are trying to tell him.
Saddam has been a concern for over twelve years. While some argue this constitutes a failure by the international community, it can also be viewed as a success, e.g. "Is the glass half full or half empty." For Bush, in light of 9/11, he perceives the situation with Saddam fearfully. For the remainder of the world, who are more reasoned and less emotional about 9/11, the twelve years represents a successful containment of Saddam.
Regardless of the point of view, there is no compelling reason to take action in Iraq immediately. More importantly, each day the U.S. works to end the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians bolsters our credibility within the Muslim community.
At this time, we witness a serious conflict between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East. By waging war on Iraq, we increase the religious complexity. It can be perceived that both Jews and Christians have aggressive interests against Muslims nations or people. This is not the perception Bush wants to further. If the U.S., a predominantly Christian nation, would lead the efforts for peace between Israel and a new state of Palestine, any future action against Iraq would be viewed in a more favorable light.
If Bush can bring peace to the Israelis and Palestinians, the world would quickly fall in line behind his leadership. He will have earned respect around the globe. But to initiate another war in this region, amidst the current and great tensions, represents a failure on many levels. And sadly, Americans and American interests will suffer deeply for generations to come.
