As the Bush team steamrolls its way towards a war in Iraq, we find this message from Henry Kissinger: 
“It is not in the American national interest to establish preemption as a universal principle available to every nation.”
Mr. Kissenger also writes:
“American military intervention in Iraq would be supported only grudgingly, if at all, by most European allies.”
I can tell you that it’s not only the European allies that would be unlikely to support action in Iraq—Asia doesn’t seem to be too fond of the idea, either.
Speaking of Asia, here’s what Mr. Kissenger had to say about that particular region:
“The most interesting and potentially fateful reaction might well be that of India, which would be tempted to apply the new principle of preemption to Pakistan.”
So, not only is this war likely to alienate our allies, destabilize the Middle East, and give Islamic fundamentalists even more reason to hate the U.S., but it will also give other nuke-toting states a precedent for aggression in the guise of preemption. Great. Tell me, just how far are we willing to let Bush go to ensure Republican victories in November? (Which is, in my opinion, the real reason Bush wants this war so much: To drape the flag around his party, thereby ensuring Republican dominance in government.)
I’m afraid I am forced to agree, once again, with Mr. Kissenger:
“America’s special responsibility, as the most powerful nation in the world, is to work toward an international system that rests on more than military power—indeed, that strives to translate power into cooperation.”
No cooperation, no war. It should be that simple. Why isn’t it?