On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Carl Remick wrote:
> Au contraire, as the Old Europeans say. However bloodless (and we'll
> see about that), this attack represents an arbitrary exercise of power
> by the US. This action has not been sanctioned by the UN; the US is in
> fact acting in total contempt of the UN. That's nothing to cheer about.
I completely agree, Carl. But that is true whether it is bloodless or not. The fight to control the US and to build a juster and more democratic international order -- in which the US will be primus unter pares rather than just priapus -- will be the same whether this war is bloodless or not.
Bloodless war in itself, were it possible, would be is a good thing. Whether we get a juster order or a worse one out of this war will not be a function of how bloodless it is. It will be a function of whether Bush and his gang of madmen are voted out office in two years, which I think is fully possible.
If they are not, then things will get worse, much worse, whether this is a bloody mess or not.
But if they are, the succeeding Democratic administration will have a mandate and a constituency for a new multilateralism such as they never had before. It will be the first redirection of foreign policy back towards that goal since the end of the Cold War. Both parties have been trying to free themselves for freer unilateral action ever since.
Body bags will not determine this argument. Political mobilization will -- along with economics, which will probably matter most of all, at least the on the electoral point. Mobilization will matter to the agenda setting afterwards. But will only matter if the election gets these guys out who got in by stealth in the first place, a trick they won't be able to use twice.
Michael