or, of course, is quite the opposite of Brook’s thesis. What Salvador teaches us that belligerent U.S. unilateralism failed miserably in trying to stabilize that tiny and suffering nation. In the end, it was a UN-negotiated multi-lateral solution that secured the peace and stopped the bloodshed.
Once again it’s that old left story: nothing’s changed since the eighties, the US is still bad boy no.1, imposing its will on small defenceless nations. As opposed to….? Leave Iraq to the tender mercies of Saddam? Let it fall to the Islamists? Yes, Brooks is misguided in trying to compare El Salvador and Iraq, but Cooper is doing just the same, from a different perspective.
What’s implicit in Cooper’s approach is the notion that the invasion of Iraq was some sort of whim, a mistaken desire to impose US-style democracy, a piece of Western hubris. I don’t see it that way. As Tony Blair said – a position he now seems to be abandoning – no responsible political leader could allow the situation in Iraq to continue. Saddam had already attacked two neighbouring countries, and had waged a virtual campaign of genocide against the Iraqi Kurds. He was talking himself up as the new Saladin. He was clearly interested in acquiring WMDs, and if he didn’t have ready-to-go missiles lined up, he was determined to get them. He had terrorist connections. He was, in sum, dangerous and out of control. His grip on Iraq was far too strong for any opposition to even think of forming. Sanctions were worse than useless, and the Iraqis were suffering appallingly. The UN, notably France and Russia with their profitable dealings with Saddam, weren’t about to authorise any action: they were happy with the status quo. So….now we have a situation where Saddam’s gone, but the country is desperately trying to piece itself together, against anti-democratic forces who indulge in acts of barbarity. If anything, should the left not be pushing for Bush (or Kerry…whoever) to do all that can be done to make sure that fair democratic elections in Iraq take place as planned, and that the forces of reaction are defeated?
Leave a Reply