Manila Discussion archive for:

• Working Together

• Re: Working Together (#)
• 8/8/02; 5:44:12 PM ¦ by Otto Kunz
• Hi!
  
  Hmmm??? Hiring mercenaries to topple Saddam. It is an appealing idea. Of course, the underlying concept appears to be flip and humorous. Nevertheless, the idea warrants some consideration. A mercenary organization would be unified in purpose -- earn the reward -- with each member recognizing there's a chance he or she won't make it as an individual. This would make the group powerful and dangerous. The obstacles would be formidable, but I can't help but wonder whether such an effort might succeed. (Of course, there's considerable doubt on my part that Saddam is the right target. Osama seems to be an ideal candidate for such a pilot program.)
  
  On the other hand, I'm not sure we'd want to jump the gun with such a step right now. At this moment, only reprehensible, criminal governments launch preemptive strikes against sovereign nations. If America sics the Pentagon on Saddam, we'd be in that category, and would open ourselves to the possibility of military action against us by other sovereign states. (Then again, we have been the bully many times. We simply haven't been the bully against an adversary that would doubtless gain the instantaneous and undying support of every Arab nation, and several others besides. Even Khadafy wasn't connected well enough to pull that off, Cold War or not. The Saudis, and the Jordanians have already told us they would withdraw support for us, which would amount to defending Saddam.)
  
  If, on the other hand, we let the mercenaries have a crack at it, we open ourselves up not only to attacks by sovereign states, but also to mercenary attacks against us.
  
  To this, it may be argued that such attacks are already happening, and in fact that such an attack precipitated this debate in the first place. Fair enough. But Osama attacked *us*, not our President. Our national response so far has been to align the sovereign governments behind us in a "war" against vigilante (aka terrorist) organizations. Our current policy of appealing to the sovereignty of sitting governments holds irresistible appeal for most heads of state and their staffs. I contend that it's the only thing that holds America's position as "The Only Superpower" firmly in place, at least on global political terms.
  
  The truth, of course, is that China is currently an enormously powerful country and is becoming more so with each passing year. China already has nuclear weapons (lots of them) and the ICBMs to launch them against the US and anyone else. We are fighting a modified cold war against them right now. We have the mutual deterrence and espionage that typified US-Soviet relations, but have added market investment and representation in the WTO to the mix. (I think this is similar to the $1 trillion grain deals we had with the Soviets in the 60's, 70's and 80's.) The theory is that they are less likely to attack us if they are dependent on our investment for their economic well-being.
  
  Russia, Ukraine and a few other former Soviet republics are also credible threats, though probably not by themselves. With Chinese support, however, any of them could prove to be our worst enemies.
  
  None of this is to imply any hawkish fervor against China or any other country on my part. My position is quite the opposite. We should expand our trade with China and most other countries so that we all share a greater degree of common interest, and we should avoid giving any other country just cause for attacking us. It's not enough to be angry about vicious attacks against us. If we behave like a bully in a schoolyard, we will ultimately fall victim to the bully's plight -- a cold, lonely, terrible awakening sometime later. America is far better than that.
  
  If I were in the President's shoes, the first thing I'd do is say "ouch" because I am taller than he is and his shoes would hurt me terribly. Right after that, though, I'd think long and hard about China's response to our proposed actions.
  
  If we invade Iraq without provocation (a move supported by Cheney and Rumsfeld, and opposed by Powell and a lot of Pentagon brass), I don't think the Chinese would find it difficult to sway a significant number of sovereign states to abandon support for America and join a new Chinese-led coalition on the world stage. In my humble opinion, this is the worst possible scenario for America's prospects over the next 10-20 years. We really must refrain from invading Iraq unless we have grounds that are at least as good as those we had in '91.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Otto Kunz