Gerald Plessner is a op-ed contributor to our local Pasadena Star News



Gerald's latest

Gerald, I have checked your Dec 2001 plan on your web site and I really appreciated your insights. Though cognizant, even then, of suspicious motives of Bush, your heart and your head were in the right place. Your heart in that, though brutally attacked on 9-11, our ambition should be not only to neutralize threat but to build democratic or at least pluralistic institutions in the Middle East. Your head was involved in calmly describing the facts and is nearly prophetic in its scope.

Now, what is it 2 years later that is different? You say it is American “imperialism” as practiced by the Bush administration. This is largely a bogus argument as evidenced by your own program, which is not imperialism but the Marshall Plan redux. How can you say that efforts were not made at international cooperation? Nearly the entire year of 2002 was spent in attempting to have the UN enforce its own resolutions. But you would counter that WMD was the deceptive approach and that international cooperation no matter how long it took was necessary (after all containment as policy against the Soviets was sufficient for decades).

But WMD was the “international” approach. How else to enter another country and end its regime than to declare its breach of international resolutions and its continuing hostile intent? It is clear fact that the UN never lifted sanctions from Iraq and never declared that the hostilities of Desert Storm had officially ceased. This is, of course, because Saddam did not and could not change his mind to actively cooperate beyond the off again, on again, inspection (hah!) program.

Your plan does not overtly state it but it is implied that its motive was to assist Iraq. Beyond the long tyranny and aggressive behavior, though, why Iraq? Because it was obvious that for a dozen years, Iraq was trapped in a tortured, half-state existence. And who was profiting from that? Saddam clearly was the chief but not only profiteer from this arrangement. The Food for Oil program, which strangely enough some want to revive, was the worst kind of government agency – no accountability, gross bribery inside and out, poor distribution. People were starving while Saddam got richer and possibly fiddled with who knows what. Their economy withered from dependence on it but there where no incentive for escape. Beyond food, of course, a government program needs to provide for other quality of life issues like sports and recreation. So UN money went to Saddam’s sons to promote this worthy cause but we know what sports they were really into. And the long term oil supply and development contracts were with French and other European companies. Suffering, dependence, and profiteering mandated and officiated by external forces – a clear cut example of imperialism. Can you deny it?

Iraq was a neverland where terrorist organizations like Ansar al Islam and Al Queda were operating, though it presumed largely independently of the government. So anything could happen in a country like Iraq. Let me put it this way:

What if Gore got his Florida votes and took office. We still take the hit on 9/11. He does the right thing in Afghanistan. So beyond your plan, what would have advised Gore to do? And if France and Germany balked, what then? How many years of wrong headed containment in simply bizarre circumstances should be tolerated? How would you tell him to deal with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that like to play both sides of the street? How would have deal with WMD in the hands of rogue nations and terrorists?

Already we see that “cowboy diplomacy” can end a sanction “quagmire” beyond Iraq. Khadafi has come around and don’t tell me it’s just because of sanctions (since 1986!) and Clinton’s cool headed policy. Iran and Syria are listening now and perhaps even that vile monster idiot in North Korea (but that’s in China’s sphere of influence, a whole other topic!!)

Let me just tell you that family and friends of the Republican persuasion couldn’t understand my defense of Clinton on foreign policy. They said that Clinton was a foolish Democrat diverting attention from scandal and needlessly involving us in Bosnia and Kosovo. I countered it was the right thing to do. I said for hundreds of years, Germany and Russia as well as Greece and Turkey or their proxies, have struggled over the area. Traditionally, an “honest broker” with no territorial intentions there like Britain was needed. Britain can no longer do it alone, so within a NATO framework, the US helped in the nasty situation. Blair and some Eastern European nations kindly returned the favor as part of the coalition of the willing when the UN and NATO fell through on its obligations.

Forget international consensus – it rarely happens. It’s time for real effort for a domestic bipartisan consensus on important world issues. Our safety depends on it.