Louis Vincent Riggio
Friday, March 14, 2003

As the United States exerts every effort to form a strong anti-Iraq alliance, I believe it’s worthwhile to examine motivations not generally highlighted among some of our partners in the Coalition of the Willing, some of our erstwhile “allies” and Iraq, too.

Probably many of NewsMax’s readers have seen the matter of alliances discussed on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly himself asserting that America’s alliances of convenience hardly merit criticism when, in fact, they have been commonplace elsewhere since the dawn of time.

Even though George Washington probably would have opposed this type of realpolitik (a term which didn’t exist during his time), calling into question its compatibility with the principles of American Independence, let’s look at some of the more obscure motivations or attitudes.

Britain and Australia

While we’re very pleased and grateful to have Tony Blair and John Howard so firmly on board, in fact both have promoted radical disarmament of their own people through draconian firearms confiscation laws. Indeed, they are most supportive of U.N. disarmament efforts that eventually would nullify what remains of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Naturally they support disarmament of Iraq and, indeed, everyone else. The present case is a no-brainer for them because of that country’s violation of the terms imposed after the Gulf War. It’s the perfect venue to promote the general disarmament agenda. Thank you, Saddam.

Concerning illegal immigration, both countries have been plagued by unexpected Iraqi arrivals, the matter being of particular moment in Australia. Obviously, they’d both like something done about this.

France

Roundly booed here as an ingrate and a nation anxious for commercial advance into Iraq, while it is true we helped liberate them in both World Wars, it’s possible they might not have been so pleased to have been crushed and occupied by Hitler years before we would bring force to bear.

While we weren’t ready for war in 1939, we could have restricted diplomatic relations with Germany and/or taken other measures once Poland was so cruelly invaded. This was a foreign-policy failure on our part about which neither France nor Britain has much cause to recall with equanimity.

On the question of commerce, the Wall Street Journal of March 10, 2003, reported that through USAID the U.S. government is soliciting bids exclusively from U.S. companies for Iraqi reconstruction. Taking this into account, it’s a bit out of line to continue to be overly critical of France, Germany and Russia in the purely commercial sphere.

In spite of these factors, one can’t argue with the assertions of Fox News political analyst Dick Morris, made on “The O’Reilly Factor” the evening of March 11. Just back from France, he had lectured ranking officials on and panned that country’s current U.N. posture. Most significant was that absent our massive buildup on Iraq’s borders, Saddam probably wouldn’t have paid attention to Security Council Resolution 1441, which, of course, France supported and, presumably, continues to support.

(Just to mention World War I and its after-effects, perhaps we could have learned more from it other than promoting disarmament, domestically as well as internationally, and blaming our defense industry, the “Merchants of Death,” most of which had to undergo painful restructuring in the postwar period. Because of this, we were hors de combat when Hitler came calling in 1939 and basically so in 1941 when it was Japan’s turn.).

Russia and China

Are the former comrades embracing again? Perhaps we’ll see. Iraq has a large commercial debt with Russia; her interest here is understandable.

Most significant, both Russia and China are major armament suppliers to anybody and everybody. Iraq is a preferred client and can pay cash, much better and more reliable than the terrorists, revolutionaries, drug traffickers, narco-terrorists and blood-diamond armies and mercenaries who make up much of the rest of the order book.

Naturally, Russia and China (and others, too, including North Korea) have a lot at stake here. According to what I’ve heard, they’re convenient to work with, nothing like being obliged to undergo the DOD process and U.S. congressional oversight.

Under communism, the Soviet camp and China, particularly the former, became economically dependent upon strategic goods to the point where they have been historically a make-or-break item in their trade accounts, on or off the books.

Finally, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out on March 11, Russia is flush with cash and able to be even more independent of U.S. policy. China has been doing very well, too, usually No. 1 or close to it in our trade-deficit derby.

How well we have been doing is a question they may be asking themselves.

Iraq

No matter what the perceived provocation, the invasion of Kuwait was a tremendous blunder, rather like the one the Argentines made invading the Falkland Islands in 1982. In both instances it appeared their governments felt confident the U.S. would do nothing or even be supportive, in Argentina’s case.

Given the beating Iraq took in the Gulf War and the fact that it has enemies such as the United States and Great Britain, one really shouldn’t be surprised that, given his nature and ability to pay, Saddam may have gone “outside the box” with respect to weaponry.

Neither can he be too pleased about the No-Fly Zone, never sanctioned by the U.N., the continual bombing of it and the autonomous zones under our protection. Therefore, like it or not, the way he apparently thinks, “having a little extra” is in order.

What is Iraq’s need for this “little extra,” her offensive capability having been destroyed in the Gulf War? Aside from preying upon his own people, a favorite, and potentially supplying terrorists, the contention amply voiced by the administration and Bill O’Reilly, given the very real threats on her borders (the U.S. and the Coalition [and the No-Fly Zone], Iran, Turkey and one over the Jordanian horizon), probably Saddam considers the prohibited weaponry a deterrent to being “walked over.”

The irony is, of course, that Iraq really has but two choices:

1. Be “walked over” peacefully through the demanded disarmament.

2. Be “walked over” through war, death and destruction.

Finally, one would have thought Saddam would have given us more cooperation, even open-armed, the United States being Iraq’s top oil customer.

The United States

Iraq (and everyone else) should have learned not only from Argentina’s woeful experience but also, more obviously, from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Japan, Germany and the poor, beleaguered Spain of 1898 that at all costs war with the United States must be avoided. When war is in the air there are no alternatives to negotiating promptly and in good faith with our government.

Conclusion

Because we are the prime movers of the impending Iraq Intervention, once it has been accomplished we must be vigilant to assure our goals are achieved and that neither our partners nor others use the victory to promote ends inimical to justice and the principles of American Independence.

A former U.S. diplomat, trade officer and international financial negotiator, Louis Riggio, now a professional linguist, resides in Florida. Military service was with the U.S. Marines. Comments may be e-mailed to him at lvr38@hotmail.com.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
China/Taiwan
Russia
Saddam Hussein/Iraq

Editor's note:
Check out “Resolve” with the official President Bush photo – Click Here Now