Ignorant Armies: Sliding Into War in Iraq
by Gwynne Dyer ISBN: 0771029772
Post Your Opinion | | A Review of: Ignorant Armies: Sliding into War in Iraq by Alexander CraigPublishing, like war, is a risky business. Dyer wrote this book
just before the Second Gulf War began. Fortunately, he's a highly
experienced journalist, and the gamble paid off. The final chapter,
over a fifth of the book, "How Bad Could It Get?", is
speculative, based in part on the assumption Saddam Hussein would
be captured early on in the conflict. Even here, however, the
reader, playing the Monday morning quarterback, can spot the shakiness
of some of the US assumptions, concerning such things as surgical
strikes, and clear, precise intelligence.
There are a number of strong threads in this book-for example, one
dealing with Israel, "the dwarf superpower". One of the
strongest is on how the US thinks, right down to the citizens of
New York, where "the powerful tradition of American exceptionalism
misled them into thinking that invulnerability was their birthright."
As his first chapter, "A Needless War" indicates, Dyer
thought this war needn't have taken place, or that at least UN
inspections should have continued first. He provides a useful
taxonomy of terrorism and gives a racy summary of the historical
background of earlier conflicts between the West and the Muslim
world.
A Saudi poll, or "classified opinion survey" carried out
by the Saudi Interior ministry in October 2002, found that "95
per cent of educated Saudis in the 28-41 age group agreed with Osama
bin Laden's views on America." How does this come about? What
can be done about it?
In perhaps his strongest chapter, "The Law of Mixed Motives",
Dyer assesses the post-September 11 scene. He gives full marks to
the US role in Afghanistan, but assails the mistaken tactics adopted
after the speech using that fateful phrase "the axis of
evil."
The motives, as the author says, are mixed on both sides, and his
skilful dissection of recent history lets us disentangle some of
the factors. History, it's been said, is a series of errors, and
some of the factors in this latest series can be traced back quite
clearly.
Saddam Hussein "thought he had a firm if unofficial alliance
with the United States after the war with Iran, and utterly
miscalculated America's response to his annexation of Kuwait in
1990 because he knew little about the world outside Iraq. In his
famous conversation with US ambassador April Glaspie in the summer
of 1990, Saddam thought he was getting American clearance to invade
Kuwait when he spoke to her about Iraq's territorial claim to the
country and she replied that the US had "no opinion."
Glaspie, on the other hand, had no idea that Saddam could be so
ignorant as to imagine he could get away with a straight-forward
cross-border invasion. She took his remarks as being purely
hypothetical, and went off on holiday. That blunder, rather than
some fiendish master plan, is how he fell into the desperate situation
he has been in for the past dozen years."
Overall, the author is perhaps too optimistic. He hails the role
of television, and international public opinion in ending the Cold
War, and giving human rights a weightier part in international
affairs.
Yet as he himself quotes George Bush, in his 2002 State of the Union
Address : The "course of this nation does not depend upon the
decisions of others." It was, Dyer points out, "a declaration
of independence from the world that drew prolonged applause from
the joint houses of Congress."
In an earlier speech to West Point cadets, in June 2002, Bush stated:
"The military must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in
any dark corner of the world. All nations that decide for aggression
and terror will pay a price."
The price Canada's new government, along with the rest of the world,
has to pay is finding ways to face this new reality. The US can
decide unilatarerally to intervene "without any obligation to
refer to the international institutions we have spent generations
to build, unless it's certain in advance they will agree to support
the United States's position."
Lewis Lapham, editor of Harper's, talking about American optimism
and insularity, sums it up as: "We don't want to know about
the past, only the future." The Iraq conflict looks likely
to be with us for quite some time to come: anyone wanting to
understand its past, as well as its possible future, will find
Dyer's book useful.
|