I find that while taking a shower, my brain works better than any other time. The brain is relaxed as the body
does all of the practiced moves that come from doing the same activity daily. It is a time for the brain to wander
freely in meditation finding new connections and recognizing patterns. It is when revelations bubble up to the
surface, when one questions the strategies and motives of others. Such was the case this morning.
We have two camps with a range of people in between the two positions. One of those camps claims to be for
“peace.” The other camp is generally seen as being for war with Iraq. In between is a whole spectrum of
ambivalence and in a few cases apathy. While showering, I pondered the true aspirations and results of each side,
and I came to the most counter-intuitive conclusions.
The group that is for the war or called “pro-war” is not for a war at all. They would rather have
peace through leveraging strength. Someone like Saddam only responds to strength. Dr. Blix admits that the only
way that weapons inspections have worked as well as they have in Iraq is because the United States, Great Britain,
and Australia have troops amassed on the border. The only time that Saddam behaves is when he is under imminent
threat of death. Nobody on the so-called pro-war side wants war. They understand Saddam’s psychology and
know that if given an inch, he will take the whole Middle East. President Bush has given him options to choose
from: disarm or die. It is not a matter of wanting war, but of seeing the necessity to deal with a man who knows
no limits on his activities other than through his own mortality.
So, what about the anti-war crowd? The greatest part of that crowd is a group of sincere individuals full of
good intentions. They believe that war is bad no matter what. If a country responds to provocation with war, they
are evil. This part of the anti-war crowd is just naïve. It does take two sides to make a war. For instance,
the war between France and Germany in the early part of World War II didn’t last long, because within weeks,
the French exercised the alternative to war, which is not peace, but subjugation. So, there are the naïve among
the anti-war crowd.
But would anybody call a French President naïve? Jacques Chirac could have many reasons for what he is doing,
but naïveté? I am not so naïve as to believe that. So, what is his motive? Many have speculated that it has to
do with lucrative oil contracts or evidence that the French have assisted Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction
build-up. But I’ve had trouble believing Jacques Chirac could be so stupefyingly transparent. It’s
well known that French and German companies have been involved in arming Saddam. Surely, they wouldn’t try to
cover up in this way? While showering the answer hit me like a cascading waterfall.
The only possible reason for France and Germany to act as they have been is that they want to see Saddam utterly
destroyed. This smacks of the grand strategy plays of a Louis XIV or Bismarck. It is absolutely brilliant. This
is how it works. If Saddam faced a unified West and unified opposition in the UN, he would do what he was asked
in disarming. He would do it in the slowest and most uncoöperative way, but he would still do it, and he would
hold onto power. Instead, he sees the West as divided and the UN Security Council as unwilling to act. He can
laugh and not take us seriously. But France knows that the US is deadly serious. Ploys like the offer to debate
President Bush on television or marches with millions of US citizens will not shake our President’s resolve.
Jacques Chirac knows that the United States will act, with only its coalition of the willing if it must, but act it
will. So, why would he purposely give Saddam false hope? Why would he lead Saddam into a false sense of security
in defying the Western world and the UN? Perhaps, he is working to ensure the overthrow of Saddam and freedom of
Iraq?
So rejoice, ye Iraqi people! That Chirac and Shroeder are working for Saddam’s destruction is the most
obvious conclusion of analysis of strategic motives, unless, of course, they really are just venal cowards.
F. B. Knight is Curmudgeon-in-Residence at the Attila the Hun School of Management. He can be reached for questions
at
fbk@attilathehunschool.net.
