Like Angus Cameron, I don't have any answers either. I'm not sure
that one can take an absolutist stance and suggest that the use of
force is always and everywhere wrong. What bothers me is the
hypocrisy surrounding the singling out of one particular regime and
according it pariah status. There are other regimes equally
depicable but they are exempted from US action because they are in
some way or other 'on-side'. It seems very difficult to construct a
credible policy based on glaring inconsistencies.
In the present crisis it seems that diplomatic solutions may well be
attainable but there appears to be no great desire on the part of the
US (or Britain) to pursue them - just as in 1991. Speaking of which,
the terrible destruction visited upon Iraq's citizens (not Saddam
Hussein) at that time resolved nothing - especially not for many
Iraqis.
In the longer term, the potential for a backlash against the 'west'
is enormous. Many people within the region might be forgiven for
perceiving western countries (or at least Britain and the US) as
being first world imperialist 'bullies' pushing a poor country
around, thus leading to an enhancement rather than a diminution of
support for Saddam.
As to what a 'critical' attitude should be - refusal to accept the
simplistic rhetoric emanating from Clinton, Allbright, Blair, Cook et
al. may be better than nothing - to which one might respond by
saying that is all very easy to do from the relative comfort and
safety of academia. It is.
Dave
Dr. David Storey
Geography Department &
Centre for Rural Research
Worcester College of Higher Education
Henwick Grove
Worcester WR2 6AJ
England
Tel: 01905 855189
Fax: 01905 855132
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|