Posted by Dan Ewert : 2/24/2003 11:05:00 PM (Archive Link)
I read this article from the Omaha World-Herald concerning a speech Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel gave at Kansas State University in Manhattan, KS. He claims that on the issue of Iraq he is neither a hawk nor a dove, but the speech makes it very clear that he’s anti-war. At one point, he said, “We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?” And elsewhere: “Allowing a rush to war in Iraq to create divisions in those institutions and alliances that will help sustain American security and world stability is shortsighted and dangerous… Today, America stands nearly alone in proclaiming the urgency of the use of force to disarm Iraq. In Europe and in many corners of the globe, America is perceived as determined to use force in Iraq to the exclusion of world opinion or the interests of our allies, even those allies who share our concerns about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. America must balance its determination with patience and not be seen as in a rush to war.” So, he’s opposing war on the basis that the U.S. wants to do it “alone.” Considering that many more countries have come out in support of America’s position than against it and that the majority of European nations also support us, this idea is completely false. It’s a pernicious falsehood, however, that many cling to as truth.

Another aspect of Hagel’s speech that’s often seen elsewhere is that America is the country wrecking alliances. That largely assumes that the other countries are already correct and we are coming from the incorrect position. I’d rather take the view that we are correct and other nations, such as France, are the ones who are damaging the various coalitions by their misguided obstinacy. The difference, however, is that America is always much more willing than other countries to adopt the blame for when things go wrong. I guess it’s because we’re so arrogant as the French like to say.

As another way to support his point of unilateralism-is-bad, Hagel also, “brought up his own experience in Vietnam, which he described as a well-intentioned war that went wrong. Hagel said Vietnam was the only time that the United States acted militarily on a large scale without wide international support.” This is a horrible comparison. I’m no fan of comparing wars in different time periods and this is an example. I don’t think any respectable historian would ever say Vietnam went badly because the U.S. went it alone. Additionally, in the coming action against Iraq, the stated purpose is the overthrow of the regime. Defeat of North Vietnam was never the purpose of that war.

This also brings up the point that a war is only successfully executed if the enemy government is overthrown and replaced with one that is more amenable to the victor. This has been true throughout history. A limited victory that allows the warring enemy to remain in power nearly always means that the war is not finished, just interrupted. The enemy will use the peaceful interim to rebuild power and again be a threat. The Roman Republic suffered two wars against Carthage before finally destroying the city in the Third Punic War. More recently, North Korea was never defeated and is again becoming a problem and Iraq has been an international thorn for 12 years because Hussein was allowed to stay in power. Aggressors cannot be contained, they cannot be dissuaded, they can only be destroyed. It’s time to finish the job in Iraq.