Site search
sponsored by
News
Monday, March 19, marked the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. As usual on such occasions, administration officials appeared on TV to provide their assessment of the war's progress. The one I saw featured Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice bashing softballs lobbed to her by NBC Today Show host, Matt Lauer.
The question that most intrigued me was one of Lauer's last: How has the U.S. invasion of Iraq affected America's image and support around the world? Without missing a beat, Rice blandly asserted that, in fact, she was finding support for our efforts in Iraq was actually growing because most countries realize that U.S. failure in Iraq would adversely affect them as well the United States.
Somehow, Lauer failed to remark that Secretary Rice's assertion came hard upon the heels of an announcement by America's closest ally, Great Britain, that it plans to draw down a significant number of its troops in Iraq in the next few months. Administration spin-doctors have been quick to describe this announcement as proof that our British allies are succeeding in their mission in the relatively peaceful southern region of Iraq. It is important to point out that Tony Blair, whose nearly decade-long stint as prime minister is coming to a reluctant end this summer precisely because his support for the Iraq war has severely diminished his popularity at home, is not transferring British troops to Baghdad, Al Anbar province, or other hot spots in that convulsed country, where their presence could be quite useful to our military commanders - he's recalling them.
In so doing, Blair is only following the lead of other allies like Spain, Italy, Poland, Korea, Japan, etc., who have pulled their troops out of Iraq, or have announced they plan to do so. Many of these same countries, it should be recalled, continue to send their troops to dangerous places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, and southern Lebanon. The difference between these missions and Iraq, of course, is that the former are NATO-supported and UN-sanctioned campaigns, standing in sharp contrast to the U.S. invasion of Iraq where Bush, Cheney & Co. decided to thumb their noses at the United Nations Security Council and proceed with an invasion that has generally been deemed "illegal" under international law.
But what about support for our efforts in other parts of the world? Most recently, President Bush completed a tour of several Latin American countries in order to demonstrate to the leaders and people of our neighboring region that he has not forgotten them despite his growing preoccupation with Iraq. In each of the countries he visited, his presence was vigorously protested by vociferous throngs denouncing him, among other things, as a war criminal for the invasion of Iraq. One prominent Argentine newspaper noted in an editorial comment that the $2 billion in additional aid Bush was promising during his trip equalled what the Pentagon spends each week in Iraq.
In a truly unprecedented move, the president's footsteps throughout the region were dogged by someone who has become a growing Bush nemesis on the world stage, the twice democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. While Bush was in Uruguay, for example, Chavez was actually holding a rally protesting his trip to the region in a soccer stadium only a few miles away across the Plate River in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Let's stop to consider this scenario for just a minute. The elected leader of the most powerful country the world has ever seen (Bush) has been publicly ridiculed by the elected leader of a small South American nation (Chavez), generally regarded as a clownish, populist demagogue, whose virulently anti-American foreign policy is heavily influenced by Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom Chavez openly embraces as a friend and mentor. Obviously, Chavez could not have carried out his protest rally had he not been invited to do so by the government of Argentina, led by another Bush critic, President Nestor Kirchner. Why would Kirchner extend such a bizarre invitation? Because he and Chavez have been doing a lot of deals lately, among which the most prominent involve Venezuela's purchase of billions (yes, billions) of dollars in Argentine bonds. Ironically, most of those billions come from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil to the United States.
Moreover, regional leaders have announced the creation of a similarly capitalized financial institution, Banco de Sur (Bank of the South), whose role will be to provide development loans on easier terms and in direct competition with such U.S.-sponsored lenders as the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank.
But Condoleezza Rice, who accompanied "W" on his swing through South America, would appear to be oblivious to all these developments. Or is she, as so often in the past, merely being disingenuous in her statements to the media and the American people?
You be the judge.
- Fred Kalhammer is a retired Foreign Service Officer and Stateline resident.
The question that most intrigued me was one of Lauer's last: How has the U.S. invasion of Iraq affected America's image and support around the world? Without missing a beat, Rice blandly asserted that, in fact, she was finding support for our efforts in Iraq was actually growing because most countries realize that U.S. failure in Iraq would adversely affect them as well the United States.
Somehow, Lauer failed to remark that Secretary Rice's assertion came hard upon the heels of an announcement by America's closest ally, Great Britain, that it plans to draw down a significant number of its troops in Iraq in the next few months. Administration spin-doctors have been quick to describe this announcement as proof that our British allies are succeeding in their mission in the relatively peaceful southern region of Iraq. It is important to point out that Tony Blair, whose nearly decade-long stint as prime minister is coming to a reluctant end this summer precisely because his support for the Iraq war has severely diminished his popularity at home, is not transferring British troops to Baghdad, Al Anbar province, or other hot spots in that convulsed country, where their presence could be quite useful to our military commanders - he's recalling them.
In so doing, Blair is only following the lead of other allies like Spain, Italy, Poland, Korea, Japan, etc., who have pulled their troops out of Iraq, or have announced they plan to do so. Many of these same countries, it should be recalled, continue to send their troops to dangerous places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, and southern Lebanon. The difference between these missions and Iraq, of course, is that the former are NATO-supported and UN-sanctioned campaigns, standing in sharp contrast to the U.S. invasion of Iraq where Bush, Cheney & Co. decided to thumb their noses at the United Nations Security Council and proceed with an invasion that has generally been deemed "illegal" under international law.
But what about support for our efforts in other parts of the world? Most recently, President Bush completed a tour of several Latin American countries in order to demonstrate to the leaders and people of our neighboring region that he has not forgotten them despite his growing preoccupation with Iraq. In each of the countries he visited, his presence was vigorously protested by vociferous throngs denouncing him, among other things, as a war criminal for the invasion of Iraq. One prominent Argentine newspaper noted in an editorial comment that the $2 billion in additional aid Bush was promising during his trip equalled what the Pentagon spends each week in Iraq.
In a truly unprecedented move, the president's footsteps throughout the region were dogged by someone who has become a growing Bush nemesis on the world stage, the twice democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. While Bush was in Uruguay, for example, Chavez was actually holding a rally protesting his trip to the region in a soccer stadium only a few miles away across the Plate River in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Let's stop to consider this scenario for just a minute. The elected leader of the most powerful country the world has ever seen (Bush) has been publicly ridiculed by the elected leader of a small South American nation (Chavez), generally regarded as a clownish, populist demagogue, whose virulently anti-American foreign policy is heavily influenced by Cuba's Fidel Castro, whom Chavez openly embraces as a friend and mentor. Obviously, Chavez could not have carried out his protest rally had he not been invited to do so by the government of Argentina, led by another Bush critic, President Nestor Kirchner. Why would Kirchner extend such a bizarre invitation? Because he and Chavez have been doing a lot of deals lately, among which the most prominent involve Venezuela's purchase of billions (yes, billions) of dollars in Argentine bonds. Ironically, most of those billions come from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil to the United States.
Moreover, regional leaders have announced the creation of a similarly capitalized financial institution, Banco de Sur (Bank of the South), whose role will be to provide development loans on easier terms and in direct competition with such U.S.-sponsored lenders as the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank.
But Condoleezza Rice, who accompanied "W" on his swing through South America, would appear to be oblivious to all these developments. Or is she, as so often in the past, merely being disingenuous in her statements to the media and the American people?
You be the judge.
- Fred Kalhammer is a retired Foreign Service Officer and Stateline resident.
