There is a transcript available for an online chat with Philip Gordon of Brookings, co-author of Allies At War: America, Europe, and the Crisis Over Iraq (2004).
In the transcript, Gordon says:
A lot of Americans--particularly hawks on the Iraq war--claimed that European opposition to the war was based on nothing but anti-Americanism or a desire for oil contracts with Saddam. I think that's not only wrong but was mostly a willful distortion of the facts in order to win the debate. It's true that there's a lot of anti-Americanism is Europe, but it doesn't automatically lead to opposition to our policies. Remember in Afghanistan there was broad European support for the war--both in public opinion and among governments. Ironically there the Europeans wanted to send more forces than we were willing to use, and today there are as many European forces--including French and German--as American. On the oil contracts, the fact is that the French and Germans were by the early 2000s doing very little business with Iraq (the US imported a lot more Iraqi oil than the Europeans) and if they had wanted to be cynical the best thing to do would have been to support the war and demand contracts in return. The fact is that there were other, non-cynical, reasons to be skeptical about the war. And now that we're seeing such violence in Iraq and political difficulties, I think we have to admit that the European critics were not completely wrong. Yes, Saddam was a monster and they knew that--but they also knew that it would be very hard to make Iraq stable after he was removed.
Most Republicans seem to be content, though, to just chant along with Oxycontin radio about how disloyal and cowardly the Europeans are.
Reality is quite different. But why bother with reality when you have Fox News?
2 comments:
In Holland the majority of the people feel that Bush and Blair played a dirty trick: connecting Al-Qaida with Saddam and his WMD. That no WMD were found, was thought to be logivally. That the focus moved to Saddam as the bad guy and that the iraqi's asked to be freed, was a necessity for justifying the war.
But what about other crooks in the world? What about North Korea?
What was the reaction of the USA to the inhuman killings in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Uganda? Totally none. I wouls agree with going to war to make this world a better world, but unfortunately hardly no war did something good.
When the reporter of Life asked Ghandi if he would fight against Hitler, Gandhi said NO. That means a lot of killing, said the reporter. Does fighting meams less killing, Gandhi replied.
Something to think about, isn't it?
Gert
Gert, people who believe that Bush and Blair played a dirty trick on the WMD claims are correct. Using a lie to justify a preventive war on a country is a very series misdeed.
I've never taken the Republicans' claim to be terribly interested in Iraqi human rights very seriously. What they want in Iraq is a pro-American regime, and they're not too concerned about how democratic or representative it is. With the handover of formal authority on July 1, when the new "sovereign" government takes over responsibility, we'll get a better picture of what the Republicans really have in mind. - Bruce
Post a Comment