As the fall of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the Cold War, this
Persian Gulf crisis
may mark the end of the post-Cold War era, a brief interlude in
history in which
America found only frustration as it sought to impose its vision on
the world.
As of now, there seem three possible outcomes to the crisis. If
Bill Clinton "declares
victory" and calls off his air strikes after last-minute
concessions by Baghdad, it will
be seen as a U.S. defeat. Saddam's prestige will soar; America's
will plummet; and
the message will go out to the world: U.S. power can be defied!
Should the president launch his strikes and Baghdad ride them out,
Saddam will be a
hero in the Arab streets. He will have stood up to the world's
greatest power, taken
his beating and refused to buckle. Our military strikes could bring
about a debacle,
with CNN footage of dead Iraqi children igniting an explosion that
destabilizes the
remaining pro-American regimes in the Arab world.
Clinton might do well to pick up a biography of British Prime
Minister Anthony Eden,
architect of the 1956 invasion of Suez. Eden felt that Israel's
seizure of the Sinai and
the British-French capture of the canal Egypt's Nasser had
nationalized would bring
him down. Instead, Nasser's standing soared, and Eden's government
fell. In politics,
you can win by losing.
The U.S. option that might work would be devastating strikes on
Iraq's war machine
that might shake the regime. But U.S. strike planes are being
denied use of the air
bases in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and every Gulf state
except Kuwait.
And U.S. air power in the Gulf is less than 20 percent of Desert
Storm levels.
Moreover, the United States anticipates only a few days of strikes,
not the six weeks
Gen. Schwarzkopf had. How, then, even if all the weapons used are
precision-guided
"smart bombs," do we blast Saddam out of power?
The United States is nearing endgame in the Gulf. If Saddam
weathers this storm,
future attacks are unlikely. He could emerge as an Arab hero in the
Nasser mold
who, despite the destruction of his country by an America at the
peak of its power,
and seven years of the most punishing of sanctions, endured and
persevered.
Clinton could emerge as America's Eden and the Gulf crisis
America's Suez. After
Eden fell, his successor, Harold Macmillan, sent his famous cryptic
telegram to
President Eisenhower -- "Over to You!" -- and began closing all
British bases east of
Suez. It was the end of the British empire.
But if Clinton is facing a potential debacle, so are we, and we
must begin to draw the
proper lessons. The first is to stop this endless braggadocio about
being the world's
"indispensable nation" and "last superpower." If it has begun to
grate even on
American patriots, how must it grate on foreigners?
"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far!" Theodore
Roosevelt
admonished. Yet not a day has passed lately without Madeleine
Albright or Sandy
Berger shaking a fist at Saddam Hussein. He has kept his mouth
shut. Now it is we
who have to backpedal on what U.S. power can accomplish. Due to our
hubris,
more nations than we might imagine would rejoice in a U.S.
humiliation.
Clinton's Wilsonian blather aside, there is no "world community."
Let us stop deluding
ourselves. There is Russia, Iraq, China, France -- each a nation
driven by its own
selfish interests.
Though the president trumpets that the "world will not tolerate"
Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction, it is apparent that the world will tolerate them,
if the alternative is
sacrifice and war. Clinton says Saddam must not be allowed to
threaten his
"neighbors." But excepting Kuwait, not one of his neighbors --
Jordan, Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Iran -- supports U.S. air strikes.
America may have to face up to the possibility that Saddam, like
Fidel Castro, may
survive and live to tell about how he mocked the great republic
and, though punished
severely, got away with it and died unrepentant. Such things happen
-- even to
imperial powers.
But the United States does not need to kill Saddam or even to
disarm him. This little
Arab country does not threaten the United States. Indeed, the
entire Gulf region has
nothing America needs, save oil; and even those who despise us in
Iran, Iraq and
Libya want to sell it. It is we who refuse to let them. If,
tomorrow, we lifted the
embargo on Iraq, world oil prices would plunge to $10 a barrel.
Consider: Iran is the largest nation in the Gulf. Yet for 20 years,
we have been totally
isolated from it. Has that hurt America? If so, how? Rather than
constantly armoring
up and going abroad in search of monsters to destroy, why don't we
just wait here at
home for our "friends" to dial 911 -- and then consider their
requests?
