Copyright © 2003 The International
Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. The United States is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption - the idea that any nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future - is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on America's - or some other nation's - hit list. There are huge cracks emerging in time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after Sept. 11. This administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, international order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of America's leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant - these types of crude insensitivities can do the United States no good. It may have massive military might, but it cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. It needs the cooperation and friendship of its time-honored allies as well as of the newer-found friends whom it can attract with its wealth. U.S. military manpower is already stretched thin, and America will need the augmenting support of those nations which can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering it on. We hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will the United States seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power after Saddam Hussein? Will America's war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Has senselessly bellicose U.S. language and callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only two short years this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any president after the savage attacks of Sept. 11. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable. Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. The challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. Senator Byrd is a Democrat from West Virginia. This comment is taken from remarks in the Senate on Feb. 12. Copyright © 2003 The International Herald Tribune |