The Cynic Express(ed) 1.14: Echoes of Hollow Threats

     Chekhov said, as any writing professor and perhaps even all of them will tell you, that if you are going to write about a gun hanging over the fireplace in the first act of a play, you should have it go off by the third act. Chekhov was talking about good drama, but inadvertently he was also talking about good foreign policy.

     In November of last year, President Clinton told Iraq that Saddam Hussein's hijinks-- especially his refusal to let arms inspectors from the United States into the secret and sacred places of the Iraqi chemical/biological weapons program--would not be tolerated. Many, many fine pundits and many, many fine people on the street explored the Military Option for the television cameras. Of course, this time as many times before, the United States would draw a hazy, unspecified line, and if the threat-of-the-week crossed the line, he (or she--I'd hate to be sexist, but the Prime Minister of Pakistan or other women leaders have never really squared off against the United States) would be hack-n-slashed by the great sweeping stroke of the American military sword.

     Now, in January, the hilarious hijinks of that Mad Arab of the nineties (as opposed to the Mad Arab of the mid-eighties, Khadafi, or the Mad Arab of the late seventies, the Ayatollah Khomeni) continue as Hussein flagrantly thumbs his nose at the resolutions of the United Nations and the saber-rattling of the United States. When will the sweeping arm of Yahweh, Democracy, or at least the United States Marines, lay waste to the regime that lays waste to Iraq?

     If the United States or selected spokespersons thereof are going to threaten the use of military force, or explore the military option, or whatever face-saving-for-the-threatened euphemism the spokespersons choose to use, they should back it up when the madman of the moment does not budge. With all the fury, fire, sulfur, and brimstone the armed forces can muster.

     Military, or as the British would say, milit'ry, force should be a last step reserved for threats to the security of the nation. My brother is one of the pieces of national tank fodder that would make little Roman numerals charging up vast blackboards and overlays in Pentagon planning rooms, so rest assured that I am not your typical bloodthirsty hawk hungry for conquest. However, without the whip to go with the warning, more petty little demagogues from continental backwaters will feel the need to puff their chests out at the United States and continue to defy the squabbling little demagogues from the United Nations. And if the U.S. or the U.N. eventually decides to invade or to strike against the aggressors, the engagement occurs after plenty of huffing and puffing that has given the enemy plenty of time to prepare.

     If the United States would only keep its word and its threats a little more quickly, I would posit that many other grandly-deluded heads of military juntas would be careful with their blustery, often violent statements of non-conformity to the world community and often to the standards of decency and human rights, not to mention their threats to the United States and our citizens. The projection of strength and firm resolve would quite handily deter them, and if not, a quick, precise steamrolling would do the trick.

     Of course, it would rest upon our leaders to pick worthwhile endeavours and issues to take to task force. World leaders stockpiling enough anthrax to kill the world's population several times over constitute a threat to the United States; squabbling tribes in Africa or central Europe hell-bent on destroying each other do not. It is up to the electorate, which is us, to select leaders with that keen eye for such broad details and differences.

     At the very least we should elect leaders who will fire the gun they put above the fireplace sometime before the last act wherein the credibility of the United States fades to black.