I will answer your last post to me in this reply since it covers the same exact assertions I am having problems with.
Let's start where we are in agreement. We are both agreed that it is not good for anyone, much less a powerful organization looked to for guidance and protection, to be caught in a bluff. If force is threatened, but is not or cannot be actualized given that a stated precondition arises, it is likely to be seen as a weakness and more entities are likely to not listen to threats in the future.
Here is a working analogy: A nation has developed a naval force for protection of its national security and merchant shipping as well as perhaps to prevent smuggling. If an entity (lets say a group of smugglers) begin becoming a nuisance the gov't might announce that any further attempts to land in a certain area for smuggling purposes will be met with force! There is a threat of force and a precondition.
Smugglers will undoubtedly test this threat for veracity. If the nation does not do anything to block their attempts, then they will see (or believe) that they can get away with their operations and are likely to ignore threats in the future. Likewise national enemies and pirates might notice that bluff and ignore threats made by that nation in the future.
Thus getting caught in a bluff, is bad for national business.
HOWEVER...
1) The nature of bluffing in diplomacy...
The idea that bluffing is neither useful, nor necessary at times, nor part of everyday diplomacy in the world at large (when one considers tha large variety of threatened sanctions beyond military), and that it results in eternal weakening of the entity caught bluffing, is patently false and shows a great misunderstanding of how diplomacy works.
All nations work toward maintaining national sovereignty and attaining national interests, while avoiding the worst solution possible... war. The entire point of diplomacy is to avoid war which undeniably causes more problems than other solutions (except once one is under attack, or imminent attack). The UN in specific is designed to provide mechanisms of bargaining and threats (of many different kinds) so as to help smaller nations from being smashed in simple "might equals" right power grabs from both other small and large nations.
These mechanisms are generally filled with bluffs in order to reach bargains. Like the US might bluff that it will impose trade sanctions, or cut aid, or not vote for something another nation wants, in order to get a support vote on another issue. The key is making sure the bluff sounds real.
If caught, it is not important to always follow through, but to make sure one follows through on those issues that count.
2) The UN and its actions regarding Iraq...
Your assertion that everyone who voted for the resolutions which allowed for force against Iraq yet did not back the Iraq War were merely bluffing appears counterfactual. I might add your statement is rather offensive as I could see having supported the resolutions for force, yet not supported the invasion and I know for certain I would not have been bluffing.
Here are some alternatives to consider:
{a} They may have supported force, but not war (at least not at that time). Generally "use of force" or "serious consequences" is accepted in language to mean "equivalent to needs" and not inherently "total war".
Using the original analogy, when smugglers start testing the nations resolve a ship may be sent in to show resolve is there, if they continue to test then a shot is sent over the bow, if this is not sufficient then an attempt to disable the vessel, and only if that does not work a fullscale battle will ensue.
In this case you are buying into the very stock dilemma that Bush was selling, when you posit it as mere bluff if others did not back his full scale war. You may note (if you read writings at the time) that there was not a problem with force, but degree of force being suggested by the US.
Can you not think of alternatives? I can. Others could.
{b} Iraq had not necessarily met conditions requiring force. Despite your harping on the fact that it had been ten years of bucking resolutions, that does not argue that the degree of violation was sufficient for such dramatic force... specifically an invasion.
Even Bush acknowledged at the beginning of his term that Saddam was contained and his threat to the region null. The only time his message began to change is after 9/11 when the hawks rose to power (who had public plans against Iraq prior to 2000) and he began to amplify incomplete and sometimes wholly fraudulent evidence to make his case.
Those who resisted his call to war, were skeptical that Iraq was in conflict with the resolutions in such a way as to mandate a serious infliction of violent force. This is especially true when the mere threat of violence appeared to be yielding some fruit.
You can look here for the increasing objective assessment of compliance, and findings contrary to Bush's claims as he continued to build for war.
Using the original analogy: if a naval ship in the harbor is keeping a known smuggler's ship from landing most of the time, and the nation can't quite prove its case that serious smuggling is occuring, then what is the reason to have the navy start firing and sinking that smuggler's ships? The precedent of firing on merchant boats based on minor infringements or questionable evidence, especially if those boats appear to be moving toward compliance is perhaps more dangerous than a bluff. If you can be attacked anyway, what's the point in complying at all?
{c} Following up on b, it could also be that even if Iraq was noncompliant, there were real world conditions which prevented their acceptance of war as a solution at that point in time (under those conditions). War, as we can see now, is not just popping a few caps off. It is a major undertaking which eats up time, money, and resources. This is doubly so when it will involve nation building. Thus countries are going to be very careful of which projects they take on.
The fact of the matter was that a real war had just begun against AQ. This was going to be eating up time, money, and resources. Iraq WAS NOT CONNECTED TO AQ. Therefore moving assets to get involved with Iraq was not only going to be weakening an ongoing (and more important) conflict at the time, but in addition all intelligence groups noted that such a war could lend assistance to AQ!
Using the analogy, it would be seriously questionable for a nation to waste time diverting naval resources to hunt small time smuggling operations when there is an active war going on with an enemy nation, and the act of trying to wipe out the smugglers will rally more people to the enemies' side.
There is an important notion of picking your battles. Iraq was not as important, or important enough, at the time to warrant such dramatic activity, specifically when they were contained, not posing a threat, and the mere threat of war drove them into better compliance.
It would have been a serious mistake for anyone to not take real world events into consideration. Even if this had resulted in no attack on Iraq, a nation which later showed a real threat would unlikely have gone unchallenged. You may note the evidence for this in that no one was having any issues regarding Afghanistan.
3) The US, bluffing and pulling the UN's teeth...
The idea that Bush or the US was somehow actually putting muscle behind the UN's mandates is absurd on its face. It obviously twisted arms and made bargains to get the original resolution that DID NOT CONTAIN A MANDATE FOR WAR, then bluffed that they'd go for actual support for war and reneged when they realized there was little support for it.
I mean our concern certainly was not about sticking up for enforcing UN resolutions.
Here is a list of resolutions against Israel, with an addendum of all the ones the US shot down with unilaterally shot down with its singular veto. And
here is a list of oustanding UN resolutions regarding other nations other than Iraq. The real reason should be obvious, given Bush's flipflop on Iraq and the papers written by his hawk advisors for eliminating Iraq in order to help Israel and stabilize oil reserves.
You might note from the last link that...
Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote. The preceding list, therefore, includes only resolutions where the United States voted in the affirmative or abstained.
Thus even when they don't overtly cripple a UN mandate, they do go along with ignoring enforcement of resolutions just like all the other nations.
If you want to knock diplomacy and champion war as the only solution for problems, fine. If you want to say that the UN should have been putting pressure on Iraq earlier, fine.
But to claim that Bush and the US showed up some inadequacy of the UN because it did not support his rush to war, and indeed Bush was some standard bearer for not bluffing and standing behind ones words, well that is simply counterfactual and naive.
In the end analysis, Bush went to the UN to play at diplomacy but he didn't know how it worked and trusted neocon hawks to make a case. When HE failed at diplomacy because he was inept, he did what every other loser does... packed up his cards and money and declared that it doesn't work at all. Sour grapes.
He now wants to take over the house and rig the games in his favor. THEN he'll be willing to play. Might makes right and Bolton is the perfect manager for such an enterprise.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2