| |
|
Here's my analysis - presuming it's genuine. (Yes, the CIA have said it is. Well, they would.)
It's an odd thing to say, because it will actually make European countries *less* likely to pull troops out. Before, they could pull out and claim that they were doing it to protect their own citizens. Now, with this pre-emptive announcement, any move that way will be seen as "appeasement", which is politically damaging. No government wants to be seen as giving in to threats. It's always been unstated but accepted that not invading Iraq would make you less likely to be attacked by al-Q, and governments might have made decisions on that basis without mentioning it, but now there's an extra public facet.
My current opinion is that, again, if it's genuine, it's on the basis that European countries are going to pull out *anyway*. Regardless of al-Q attacks, their soldiers are being killed, and pretty much universally their populations were majority opposed to invading Iraq. If they are going to do it anyway, why not make this announcement so it looks like al-Q has won? In other words this is aimed at the Arab and Muslim world rather than the West - we're not the centre of the universe after all.
The other thing is that it will exacerbate splits between coalition members (okay, the US) and those states that leave. In the US, the accusations of "appeasement" were constant when Spain was mentioned; now there's been an explicit statement, the "with us or against us" attitude will be even worse, which is of course exactly what someone wanting to attack the US would want. It looks like they'll need multinational support to continue suppressing Iraq, and divisions will help prevent this. Not that the current administration is really doing very well in encouraging other nations to join them in the Great Crusade For Democracy by themselves. |
|
|
