In response to criticism that the United States lacks international support for war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday that America does, in fact, have many allies. Appearing on three talk shows, Powell listed Britain, Spain, Portugal and several Eastern European nations as supporters of military action and sought to counter perceptions that the international community is widely opposed to war.
Although the United States is not alone in its desire to confront Iraq, the coalition supporting us is neither as broad nor as strong as Powell described. Whereas in past conflicts, the United States enlisted the active support of powerful, longtime allies, the current conflict finds America courting small, weak nations that offer us little more than moral support. The United States is capable of defeating Iraq independently, but war is a heavy burden that we should not bear alone. Any campaign to topple Saddam Hussein will have enormous costs and should not be undertaken without the active support of our allies.
In preparation for the Persian Gulf War, the previous Bush administration assembled a coalition of allies far superior to the meager list Powell offered on Sunday. Following Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, the elder Bush secured the military support of America's NATO allies, the financial support of nations such as Japan and the logistical support of several Persian Gulf nations. The United States also led a diplomatic campaign to win U.N. support for the conflict. By November 1990, when the Security Council authorized war, the coalition had grown so large that Bush could rightly describe the coming conflict as one of "Iraq against the world."
The result of Bush's patient coalition building was a war whose military and financial costs were easily shared among participating nations. Widespread internationalsupport also gave the conflict a sense of legitimacy and protected the United States from accusations of military adventurism. The Persian Gulf War was a fine example of collective security at work and should serve as a model for future campaigns.
Americans can hardly expect so much in the coming conflict, which will see the United States fighting more or less alone. Great Britain will offer some military and financial support, but the other nations on Powell's list have neither the wealth nor the military strength to make a meaningful contribution to the war effort. This is particularly concerning at a time when the United States is confronting so many other security threats around the world. With an ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, a nuclear standoff with North Korea and expanding commitments to the war on terror, America's military and financial resources are stretched thin. Under such circumstances, the conflict with Iraq is a project we should not undertake by ourselves.
Moreover, the current coalition cannot lend any legitimacy to the coming conflict. The Persian Gulf War was widely viewed as an acceptable exercise of American power because it was supported by all of the world's prominent nations. A new Persian Gulf War will be an American conflict fought with the token support of several small nations. Such a group cannot command the widespread respect of the international community and, as such, cannot protect America from inevitable accusations of superpower arrogance.
Whatever Powell's claims of international support, America's "coalition of the willing" is too small, too weak and too poor to offer any meaningful assistance in a war with Iraq. Moral support from new friends is welcome but of little use when so many old friends remain on the sidelines. As Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., put it last month, "We need the support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on."
If the United States is to confront Iraq without bearing the military, financial and political costs alone, the Bush administration must make a renewed effort to win the support of such longtime allies as France and Germany. We must also seek out the support of other prominent nations like Russia and China. If their assistance is not forthcoming (as seems likely), we must ask if a war in Iraq is worth fighting alone.
The consequences of war for American security will be negligible at best and possibly much worse. If the United States bears the entire cost of that war, we may compromise other important projects, such as the global war on terrorism. Lacking the support of most key allies, the United States might do better to seek a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi threat and save its military, financial and political resources for the wider war on terror.
If America is to achieve lasting security in a world plagued by terrorism, we cannot fight alone and we cannot allow our time-honored alliances to lapse. The United States needs all of its allies in the war on terror and we should not fight Iraq without them.
(Alec Solotorovsky is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at asolotorovsky@cavalierdaily.com)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
