Jewish World Review Sept. 30, 2002 / 24 Tishrei, 5763

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The world will follow us to war | Less than two minutes into his speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club last week, Al Gore said he was "deeply concerned" that the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq will "weaken our ability to lead the world."

It was a point he kept repeating. America's ability to secure "broad and continuous international cooperation" in the war against terrorism, he said, would be "severely damaged by unilateral action against Iraq." Unlike during the Gulf War, "many of our allies in Europe and Asia are thus far opposed to what President Bush is doing." Bush has "squandered" the "sympathy, goodwill, and solidarity that followed the attacks of Sept. 11th and converted it [sic] into anger and apprehension." He has conducted foreign policy "at the expense of solidarity . . . between America and her allies."

This is hardly a new argument (though it is new for the former vice president, who as recently as February was calling for a "final reckoning" with Saddam's regime, which he labeled "a virulent threat in a class by itself"). Is there any Bush critic who hasn't claimed that the administration's determination to oust Saddam was costing us the support of the rest of the world?

Here, for instance, is an August editorial in The New York Times, which has been beating the no-war drum for months: "Rarely in preparing for war has America seemed so isolated from potential military partners and allies as it does today."

And here is Democratic partisan James Carville, railing on CNN the other night: "Let me tell you something. The Koreans hate us. Now the Germans. . . . You know what? If we had a foreign policy that tried to get people to like us, as opposed to irritating everybody in the damn world, it would be a lot better thing. . . . Our foreign policy makes it where people don't like us."

And Senator John Kerry, scolding the president in a recent op-ed column: "The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. . . . The administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own."

There is just one problem with this argument. It isn't true.

To be sure, not every country favors a US war on Iraq. The French are against it, in keeping with their old habit of accommodating dictators instead of fighting them. More surprisingly, the Germans are against it too. In his re-election campaign, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder repeatedly denounced Bush's war plans, and was backed up by other members of his Social Democratic Party. Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin reportedly likened Bush's rhetoric to Adolf Hitler's; Ludwig Stiegler, the SDP leader in the German parliament, said Bush was "acting as if he's Caesar Augustus."

But no sooner was Schroeder returned to office than he forced Daeubler-Gmelin to resign and stripped Stiegler of his party post. Why? If the prospect of a US war against Saddam is truly "irritating everybody in the damn world," the victorious Schroeder would hardly feel the need to take such drastic steps to appease Washington. It is precisely because the world is lining up behind Bush, not against him, that Schroeder is so keen to mend fences.

Consider some recent developments:

At a summit meeting in Copenhagen, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi staunchly backs the US call for regime change in Baghdad. At the United Nations, the Portuguese foreign minister says the option of war with Iraq "must be open," and that it is a great mistake for any nation to blame the United States for preparing to fight. On Sept. 12, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar declares, "If I have to choose between the camp of freedom and the camp of tyranny or . . . between President Bush or Saddam Hussein, I have no doubt which is my place or what Spain's place should be."

East of Elbe, meanwhile, support for Bush is even stronger. For good reason: East Europeans have vivid, recent memories of what it means to live under a dictatorship -- and what it means like to be liberated.

Thus Czech President Vaclav Havel warns that Saddam must be defeated, recalling that "if the world had resisted Hitler sooner . . . World War II might not have happened." Bulgaria, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, pronounces the US case against Saddam "quite convincing." Romania offers the use of its airspace in any action against Iraq. Count on it: When the American war to topple Saddam begins, most of Europe will follow.

And what of the Arab world?

Well, Qatar has indicated it would welcome a request from the United States to use its Al Udeid Air Base to launch an attack on Baghdad. Jordan has reportedly agreed to let US forces target Iraqi missile batteries from positions in the eastern Jordanian desert. Egypt, Kuwait, and Turkey likewise have reportedly consented to provide logistical assistance to a US-led campaign against Saddam. Even Saudi Arabia, reversing its earlier stance, now says it will permit its bases to be used against Iraq.

All that talk of how the "Arab street" will explode if America marches on Baghdad and how Bush, as Kerry put it, "has elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors"? Forget it. "Over the past few weeks," reports the Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri, "Arab opposition to military action against Saddam Hussein has crumbled. . . . In visits from one end of the Arab world to another, one finds little evidence of any grassroots support for Saddam."

It is easy and tempting to grouse about the United States. But when the superpower goes to war, no one wants to be on the losing side. The war to liberate Iraq will be no exception.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.

09/27/02: The face of antisemitism
09/20/02: Starving time in Zimbabwe
09/14/02: Against moral confusion / 9-12-2002
09/03/02: With 'eternal friends' like these
08/30/02: Enriching survivors was a costly mistake
08/26/02: John Kerry's absent passion
08/23/02: Bonnie, get your gun
08/19/02: A screenwriter's remorse
07/29/02: The real abortion extremists
07/26/02: Another round of Kemp-Roth
07/19/02: Jews among Arabs, Arabs among Jews
07/15/02: Musings, random and otherwise
07/12/02: The new civil rights champions
07/03/02: Riding the rails
07/01/02: The prerequisite to peace
06/24/02: Frisking AlGore
06/17/02: Offense, not defense, is the key to homeland security
06/14/02: Looking at the horror
06/07/02: The cost of a death-penalty moratorium
06/03/02: Executing 'children,' and other death-penalty myths
05/29/02: A real threat?
05/24/02: The message in Arafat's headdress
05/20/02: (Mis)playing the popularity card
05/10/02: Outspoken, Muslim -- and moderate
05/10/02: The heroes in Castro's jails
05/06/02: The disappearing history term paper
05/03/02: Musings, random and otherwise
04/29/02: The canary in Europe's mine
04/15/02: Powell's crazy mission
04/12/02: The slavery reparations hustle
04/08/02: Peace at any price = war
03/26/02: Decency matters most, Caleb
03/22/02: The U.S. embargo and Cuba's future
03/19/02: The keepers of Cuba's conscience
03/15/02: A walk in Havana
02/26/02: Buchanan's lament
02/12/02: What 'peace' means to Arafat
02/05/02: Antismoking: Who pays?
02/01/02: Turn the Saudis
01/25/02: Making MLK cry
01/21/02: Ted to tax cut: Drop dead
01/18/02: Musings random and otherwise
01/14/02: An ultimatum to Saudi Arabia
01/11/02: Friendship, Saudi-style
01/07/02: Shakedown at Harvard
01/04/02: More guns, more safety
01/02/02: Smears and slanders from the Left
12/28/01: Congress gives to others -- and itself
12/24/01: The littlest peacemakers
12/20/01: How to condemn terror
12/18/01: Greenland once was
12/14/01: Parents who never said ''no''
12/11/01: Wit and (economic) wisdom
12/04/01: The war against Israel goes on
11/30/01: Tribunals, motorcycles -- and freedom
11/19/01: Friendship and the House of Saud
11/12/01: The Justice Department's unjust monopoly
11/09/01: Muslim, but not extremist
11/02/01: Too good for Oprah
10/29/01: Journalism and the 'neutrality fetish'
10/26/01: Derail these subsidies
10/22/01: Good and evil in the New York Times
10/15/01: Rush Limbaugh's ear
10/08/01: With allies like these
10/01/01: An unpardonable act
09/25/01: Speaking out against terror
09/21/01: What the terrorists saw
09/17/01: Calling evil by its name
09/13/01: Our enemies mean what they say
09/04/01: The real bigots
08/31/01: Shrugging at genocide
08/28/01: Big Brother's privacy -- or ours?
08/24/01: The mufti's message of hate
08/21/01: Remembering the 'Wall of Shame'
08/16/01: If I were the editor ...
08/14/01: If I were the Transportation Czar ...
08/10/01: Import quotas 'steel' from us all
08/07/01: Is gay "marriage" a threat?
08/03/01: A colorblind nominee
07/27/01: Eminent-domain tortures
07/24/01: On protecting the flag ... and drivers ... and immigrants
07/20/01: Dying for better mileage
07/17/01: Why Americans would rather drive
07/13/01: Do these cabbies look like bigots?
07/10/01: 'Defeated in the bedroom'
07/06/01: Who's white? Who's Hispanic? Who cares?
07/02/01: Big(oted) man on campus
06/29/01: Still appeasing China's dictators
06/21/01: Cuban liberty: A test for Bush
06/19/01: The feeble 'arguments' against capital punishment
06/12/01: What energy crisis?
06/08/01: A jewel in the crown of self-government
05/31/01: The settlement myth
05/25/01: An award JFK would have liked
05/22/01: No Internet taxes? No problem
05/18/01: Heather has five mommies (and a daddy)
05/15/01: An execution, not a lynching
05/11/01: Losing the common tongue
05/08/01: Olympics 2008: Say no to Beijing
05/04/01: Do welfare mothers a kindness: Make them work
05/01/01: Another man's child
04/24/01: Sharon should have said no
04/02/01: The Inhumane Society
03/30/01: To have a friend, Caleb, be a friend
03/27/01: Is Chief Wahoo racist?
03/22/01: Ending the Clinton appeasement
03/20/01: They're coming for you
03/16/01: Kennedy v. Kennedy
03/13/01: We should see McVeigh die
03/09/01: The Taliban's wrecking job
03/07/01: The No. 1 reason to cut taxes
03/02/01: A Harvard candidate's silence on free speech
02/27/01: A lesson from Birmingham jail
02/20/01: How Jimmy Carter got his good name back
02/15/01: Cashing in on the presidency
02/09/01: The debt for slavery -- and for freedom
02/06/01: The reparations calculation
02/01/01: The freedom not to say 'amen'
01/29/01: Chavez's 'hypocrisy': Take a closer look
01/26/01: Good-bye, good riddance
01/23/01: When everything changed (mostly for the better)
01/19/01: The real zealots
01/16/01: Pardon Clinton?
01/11/01: The fanaticism of Linda Chavez
01/09/01: When Jerusalem was divided
12/29/00 Liberal hate speech, 2000
12/15/00Does the Constitution expect poor children be condemned to lousy government schools?
12/08/00 Powell is wrong man to run State Department
12/05/00 The 'MCAS' teens give each other
12/01/00 Turning his back on the Vietnamese -- again
11/23/00 Why were the Pilgrims thankful?
11/21/00 The fruit of this 'peace process' is war
11/13/00 Unleashing the lawyers
11/17/00 Gore's mark on history
40 reasons to say NO to Gore

© 2002, Boston Globe