Iraq - Occupation

[Dirt]

"White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that even if Saddam seeks exile U.S. forces will enter Iraq to disarm it — hopefully without opposition."

This statement sounds to me like occupation of Iraq has always been the goal of the Bush Administration. The message I've always got before was that Saddam was the threat not Iraq because Saddam is the one who would sell the weapons of mass destruction to terrorists; without Saddam there would be no threat. So, why are we fighting this war?

Here's the article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20030318/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_iraq&e=5[/i]

[Anonymous]

While the comparison to Hiroshima is absurd, this article (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_210456,00120001.htm)makes some very interesting points. At least, it's a good way to see how outsiders view this as a blatant, destabilizing act of aggression.

[Chris Floyd]

This statement sounds to me like occupation of Iraq has always been the goal of the Bush Administration. The message I've always got before was that Saddam was the threat not Iraq because Saddam is the one who would sell the weapons of mass destruction to terrorists; without Saddam there would be no threat. So, why are we fighting this war?

Yeah, it's a great idea to leave chemical and biological weapons in the hands of a headless, chaotic state whose only power base is a bunch of bureaucrats and generals who are complicit in using those weapons in the past on their fellow citizens. Brilliant.

[Daniel Morris]

The Hindustan Times does make many interesting points, such as "Henry Kissinger’s politics beclouded his fine intellectual achievements."

Also, don't ask me to disregard an absurd comparison to Hiroshima when the title of the article is "Baghdad and Hiroshima." Thanks.

[Dirt]

"Yeah, it's a great idea to leave chemical and biological weapons in the hands of a headless, chaotic state whose only power base is a bunch of bureaucrats and generals who are complicit in using those weapons in the past on their fellow citizens. Brilliant."

True. However, once Saddam is gone, what's wrong with letting the UN bring in peacemakers and letting the UN inspectors finish their jobs? After all, the USA is doing this not only for it's own interests but the world's, right?

[Kyle Wilson]

True. However, once Saddam is gone, what's wrong with letting the UN bring in peacemakers and letting the UN inspectors finish their jobs? After all, the USA is doing this not only for it's own interests but the world's, right?

I'm sure that once Saddam is gone, the U.S. will be all too happy to let U.N. peacekeeping troops bear the costs and the risks of occupying Iraq. I doubt there will be many volunteers, though.

[Dirt]

"I'm sure that once Saddam is gone, the U.S. will be all too happy to let U.N. peacekeeping troops bear the costs and the risks of occupying Iraq. I doubt there will be many volunteers, though."

Did you read the quote from Ari Fleisher in the article?

[Ben Sones]

After all, the USA is doing this not only for it's own interests but the world's, right?

Wrong. The world's interests happen to coincide with our own in this matter, whether they are willing to admit it or not, but we are not going to war with Iraq based on a selfless desire to ensure the security of the French (or whomever). And if the UN can't prove itself effective enough to deal with the problem to begin with, why should the US take all the risks and then entrust them to pick up the pieces afterwards?

[Dirt]

"but we are not going to war with Iraq based on a selfless desire to ensure the security of the French (or whomever)."

exactly...

[Brian Rucker]

I still think ya'll are barking up the wrong tree if you really think this ever had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction. What happened were two significant events: Bush won (more or less) the election and brought in some pretty radical foreign policy folks (his dad called 'em The 'B' Team) who believe it's in America's interests to use its military power directly and frequently in the unipolar world. These folks were largely ignored, as was foreign policy in general, until 9/11. We freaked out. Understandibly Bush freaked out. And the alternatively ignored, feared and ridiculed guys who've been saying we need to wander the world like Kane in Kung Fu kicking ass suddenly pointed out they've had this little plan they've been working on. If you've been keeping up with events you know about the skirmishes between State and the civilian folks in the Pentagon. Powell is the only Bush, Sr. 'A' Team member in this administration while Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (along with their scarey sidekick Perle who recently called an investigative reporter that revealed his questionable profiteering from homeland defense 'a terrorist') are heart and soul signatories of the 'B' Team documents.

The B Team wants to remake the world, more or less, in our image or at least kick ass and take names to ensure nobody ever tries to surpass our might (this is pretty close to the exact language in our new official strategic defense documents. As a wise man said 'Sure, no country in our position wants a global competitor. But you don't go around saying that you'll take preemptive action to keep it from happening - in public.')

The administration knows where Al Qaida comes from. They know it's not Iraq. They mopped up Afghanistan and, next, you have to look at Saudi Arabia - there's no two ways about it. Any kind of overt attack would be too disruptive to the global economy and, besides, the Saudi royals are our boys. We supported them, and radical Sunni/Wahabi Islam, throughout the cold war as a proxy philosophy murderously opposed to aetheistic communism. This took most dramatic form in our cooperation with Pakistan's ISI intelligence service (later strong allies of the Taliban), Saudi Arabian moneymen and the Mujaheeden guerillas of Afghanistan as they took on the Soviets.

The problem is now that we've supported the Saudi Royals who are dependant on theocratic claims of purity to maintain their rule and now there are those who actually decided to take that religious shit seriously. They turned shining fanatical eyes back on the rulers that oppressed their brethren and saw pretty clearly a high level of hypocrasy between what the Saudi royals claimed to stand for and what they, in fact, did. The pure rulers were bed with Americans infidels whose godless culture and venal greed was taking over the world. At this point the Saudi Royal family is all split up. Ultimately, the country is a welfare state with the Royal's doling out a percentage of oil revenue to keep the people happy and the imams well-fed. When oil prices crashed there was suddenly less money to go around. The Royals began to take sides. Some even started believing their own hype and aligned themselves with the religious fanatics in fact. Most simply pay lip service to both the fanatics and the U.S. in order to keep their skins intact, the oil revenues coming in, and their claims to rulership alive. Tricky ain't it?

Clearly something has to be done and when in doubt, if you're a freaked out Texan, that something has to involve kicking ass. While we can't move directly against the Saudis or other countries contributing to the problem we can kick the tar out of Iraq because, on a technicality, we're still at war according to a ten year old UN resolution and a creaky ceasefire agreement that was honored more in the breach than observance. Once you mop up there you'll control the second largest reserves of oil in the world which should help focus the thinking of the less savory elements in the Gulf leadership. You also have a strategic position from which to launch attacks to protect 'strategic interests' around the region should rebellions or guerilla action threaten oil fields or 'friendly' governments in other countries or should other countries be revealed as supporters of terrorism or in a rush to develop nuclear weapons in the middle of the world's gas station. (Hey, Iran. How's it going?)

Largely, I see this as a pretty good plan. The problem is that it has never been revealed but obliquely to the American people. This thinking is really why Bush keeps confusing Saddam with Osama despite the fact they've got nothing in common and are, in fact, mortal enemies. It's also why you keep hearing about a democratic Iraq. It's poking at the autocratic Arab and Persian regimes in the region and letting the leaders know we've got causus belli any old time we want so they better play ball. None of them are democracies. All of them have special places in human rights hell waiting for them.

Aside from the lack of candor in presenting this operation to their own citizens, the Bush adminstration's overreliance on the B Team has lead to a very scarey national security document and constant rhetoric that's really freaked out the world. We're the most powerful country that's ever existed on this planet. We're all but synonymous with economic development. And until now we've never launched a preemptive war of conquest without significant international understandings in a place of such huge global significance. Even those countries that are our allies have populations violently at odds with their leaderships.

And here I am still right in the middle. I want to believe we really do plan to bring democracy to a grateful Iraqi people. I want to believe that will, along with the economic benefits it brings to these people, force other governments to reform or face the ire of their publics. I want to believe our military presence will be a steadying hand to protect governments in transition.

And then I remember that the Victorian Empire was about bringing enlightenment to the savages until commerical interests took over and all but enslaved colonials to their own interests. I remember who backs this adminstration politically and why. I remember why Bush, Sr. considered the various policy directions of the B Team scarey and members of the A Team feared the appearance, and the reality, if arrogant imperialism in our bearing. We are a mighty nation and, amazingly, until now have avoided the usual alignment of powers one sees against the mighty. Why? Because we're not seen as threatening. Well, beginning with 'you're with us or against us' we suddenly became pretty damn scarey. We've invoked questionable evidence against Iraq, used rather brutal strongarm tactics in our diplomacy, ridiculed our allies and other friendly nations, spied on diplomats on a remarkable scale, and run roughshod through the Phillipines and Columbia. We've scorned international institutions when they became flighty precisely because of our intimidating, insufferable, comportment.

I really don't know what to think. The die is cast. What we see in Iraq will tell us what is to come. If this administration is sincere in its claims about its goals for Iraq and the Iraqi people are genuinely glad we've come as liberators then we'll have one future. If American logos start going up like medieval standards on occupied oil derricks patrolled by American soldiers and paramilitary 'contractors' and governed for an extended period by generals then we have an entirely different future.

Sidebar: A lesser known and unrelated fact is that the CIA helped the Iraqi Ba'ath party overthrow Iraq's previous rulership when it started tilting to the Soviets. A young man named Saddam was a Ba'athist political leader in exile in Cairo, Egypt at the time and was known to visit the U.S. Embassy there. Later, in the 80's we supported Saddam with intelligence, munitions and WMD 'dual use' items when he fought the radical Shiites of Iraq who themselves were rebels against the dictatorial regime of the Shah installed by the CIA when an elected Iranian leader tried to nationalize previously colonial British oil fields. And you wonder why folks don't trust us...

[Anonymous]

A few years before the Baath coup we had overthrown the goverment and put a dictator in.

[Jason McCullough]

That's a great summary, Brian.

[Tyjenks]

Damn. I wish I had a standing ovation emoticon for you Brian.

Screw Powell. Brian Rucker for President!!! :wink:

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

After all, the USA is doing this not only for it's own interests but the world's, right?

Wrong. The world's interests happen to coincide with our own in this matter, whether they are willing to admit it or not...

So the French, Germens, and various other countries opposed to the war are just self-destructive? Unwilling, or unable, to see what's best for them?

Good thing the U.S. is willing to do the right thing and take actions despite the ignorent objections of lesser countries, then.

EDIT:
And then I remember that the Victorian Empire was about bringing enlightenment to the savages until commerical interests took over and all but enslaved colonials to their own interests.

The Victorian Empire was only the continued manifestation of European imperialism. "Bringing Enlightenment to the Savages" was only ever a moral justification for what the European nations did to the rest of the world.

The problem with that idea in any case, is that it invalidates all aspects of the "Savage"'s culture, life, and identity. People don't want to be treated like that; they don't want an Imperial master, mbut would prefer someone they can cooperate with. It also necessitates an imposed solution, something which usually doesn't work.

[Tyjenks]

After all, the USA is doing this not only for it's own interests but the world's, right?

Wrong. The world's interests happen to coincide with our own in this matter, whether they are willing to admit it or not...

So the French, Germens, and various other countries opposed to the war are just self-destructive? Unwilling, or unable, to see what's best for them?

Good thing the U.S. is willing to do the right thing and take actions despite the ignorent objections of lesser countries, then.

The countries you mentioned are looking at the long term for their respective economies. The French, Russians, and Germans are positioned to make more money and be more important on the world stage if Iraq stays as it is. The one thing they do not want is a more successful and more powerful U.S. It makes them more insignificant than they have already become. I do not believe they are concerned at all with what is going on in Iraq or whether Saddam has 1 or 1,000 liters of Anthrax. I know all the proof of this is hearsay at this point, but I would not be at all surprised if these countries are also afraid of us going in there and finding weapons with French, German, and Russian language emblazoned all over them.

Chirac is playing politics.

[antlers]

I will add to the huzzah's for Brian Rucker's post.

[Daniel Morris]

I'd offer a somewhat more accurate neoconservative geopolitical rationale for "war on Saddam" than the one Mr. Rucker suggests. Most simply put, it's about taking a dramatic and showy stand to deter attempts by rogue states to pursue assymetric strategic parity with the United States.

OK, there's the short summary. Now the definitions. "Assymetric strategic parity" is a fancy way of saying "rogue states acquiring guns to hold to America's head." Nuclear- or bioweapon-armed rogue states possess a real deterrent to U.S. opposition. A country like, say, Syria, can move in and quash unrest in occupied Lebanon with no fear of opposition if it possesses a serious WMD capability that the U.S. will not want to muck with.

By possessing such weapons, any state, no matter how ludicrously small and backward (think Ethiopia in five or ten years) will have achieved, in a very real way, the very same Mutually Assured Destruction that the USSR possessed -- with an even bleaker prospectus for successful containment, given that some of these regimes are run by less-than-rational actors.

The neocon argument is, "This parity can't be allowed." What they propose (and are now getting) can be thought of as the armed enforcement of the Nuclear and Chem/Bio Non-proliferation Treaties.

The proposal to the world is as follows: "If you are a rogue state seeking WMD, we will come and stomp out your regime, with very few questions asked. If you'd rather live out your days in tyrannical splendour, and pass your legacy on to your well-scrubbed sons, then simply sit out the WMD race and we'll leave you alone."

Iraq is being made an example of, simple as that. Yes, we get the added bonus of squashing a tyrant and possibly derailing future NBC attacks originating from Iraq's stockpiles -- but the real raison d'etre is to send an unmistakable message to Libya, to Iran, to Syria, to Sudan, and others.

"Abandon all plans to achieve assymetric strategic parity with the United States. We're not going to let it happen."

And by discouraging these efforts, we make it very, very, very difficult for any state, or state-sponsored actor in the bin Laden mold, to mount another 9/11.

And in that regard, Brian, it truly does have everything to do with weapons of mass destruction. You make a lot of excellent points about the other geopolitical considerations involved, and they're all definitely a big part of the picture going forward. Having a base in friendly Iraq from which to exert pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran is going to be an essential foundation for further pursuing the above-stated policy.

[Anonymous]

And by discouraging these efforts, we make it very, very, very difficult for any state, or state-sponsored actor in the bin Laden mold, to mount another 9/11.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 9/11 plot was hatched in Germany and didn't involve any WMD.

Which state was it that was sponsoring bin Laden? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Or are you going back to the days when the U.S. was his sponsor?

The U.S. has a very large hammer, overwhelming military superiority, and so we are going around the world looking for nails. Whether this will be a successful strategy for preventing asymmetric attack from non-governmental organizations remains to be seen.

[Dirt]

Yeah, it seemed that right after 9/11, the realization was that you didn't need nuclear missiles, chemical or biological weapons in order to inflict massage damage and casualties.

[Dirt]

Fuck Star Wars.

[Anonymous]

Daniel Tom Toles hit on the "we will torch you if you go for nuclear weapons" argument pretty well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20030309.gif

It sets off this chain reaction

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/images/Toles/20030319.gif

We are not powerful enough to invade all the WMD aspirants. We've committed six of the armies ten divisions to the invasion of Iraq. We don't have enough special forces or enough planes in the in air refueling fleet.

[Brian Rucker]

I almost don't want to post again seeing how well my earlier post went over. I'm not sure I can top that.

In fairness to Daniel I did treat the neoconservative position summarily and dismissively. However a showy strategy based on direct military action against any possible possessers of WMD is also essentially, as the guest points out, an invitation to attack a whole lotta folks in what amounts to projecting our power all over the place. And two important words left out of his description are 'unilaterally' and 'preemptively'. There was an earlier study paper done by the B Team, in particular Wolfowitz, that suggested this way of handling business back during Bush I. When leaked to the media (which I have to assume was somewhat better educated or more intellectually alert back then) this caused quite a firestorm of controversy and even outrage. The administration denounced the concepts and stressed the primacy of working with established coalitions and international institutions. Commentary about maintaining our primacy in the world (and while assymetrical threats were an important part of the document all potential threats are included), unilateralism and preemptive warfare was dropped in a rewrite (ironically foisted upon Dick Cheney - then Secretary of Defense).

As guest points out with his colorful, if black and white, cartoons - we can't be everywhere deterring everyone. And the more we hop around the puddle trying to squash tadpoles the muddier the waters are going to get. We're big. We make big splashes and cast big shadows once the threats, the rhetoric, and the preemptive strikes start going around. It's largely insane to think we'll be able to keep anyone from doing anything by threat of force if our own actions so alienate the rest of the world community we don't have many friends willing to back us up. Coalition of the willing? None of the countries on our first go round, even before it starts, can honestly say they're representing their own populations by siding with us. The U.N. isn't working? NATO's giving you hives? So you break it and remake...something else? What precisely? The Warsaw Pact? 70% of Eastern European opinion is against this war even if their governments for reasons noble or venal are coming along with us.

How well is the next preemptive war going to go? How long can a strategy based on naked American primacy and power last?

[Tyjenks]

Brian - because you followed those simplistic "comic" strips, it sounded just as good if not better. :wink:

[Daniel Morris]

Both powerful questions, Brian. I've been dwelling on each of these for months.

[Anonymous]

Rebuttal of Brian Rucker's two posts:

I think you're painting a somewhat accurate picture of half the story. By discounting WMDs altogether, you are also throwing out the second half. It's not a smokescreen, it's a real policy that the West has been enforcing for 500 years; that is, to develop better weapons while simultaneously denying them to non-Western countries. It's not a bad policy when viewed from the perspective of Western = democratic. Mark my words, we will indeed find the WMDs that we've been talking about, or their freshly destroyed remains.

But taking this point by point:

1) I find it difficult to believe that Bush appointed all these "B team" guys and then proceeded to ignore them. What this implies, I don't know. I'd love for a god damned investigation of 9-11, though.

2) Saudi Arabia needs to be dealt with, and if that's a side benefit of occupying Iraq, then this is not a bad move. They really are connected to terrorists and this is a perfectly legitimate extension of the "War on Terror". (I'm referring to putting pressure on them to clean up their act, not invading.)

3) Saddam and Al-Qaeda are not mortal enemies; they aren't buddies either. It's by no means clear to me that just because they don't like eachother and just because some people claim it's impossible, that they can't still come to an agreement regarding killing Americans. Furthermore, Al-Qaeda is not the only organization of fuckheads who want to nuke us. Further furthermore, Iraq doesn't have to willingly help them: even with tight security there are no absolute garauntees that stuff can't be stolen or misappropriated, and in the case of Iraq, where despite the supposedly non-religeous government most people are devotely Muslim and some are undoubtedly zealots, we can consider them pretty far from "tight security".

4) It's a false premise that invading Iraq obligates us logically to invade other dictatorships that are trying to develop WMDs. As has been pointed out several times, the situations are drastically different. Invading Korea would be a much more difficult task. Monumental in fact. And Korea is surrounded by powerful countries that at the very least *shouldn't* be happy to see them arm themselves with nukes. There's every possibility that China and/or Russia can help us put the screws to these guys. Also, those countries would object much more strongly (read: maybe violently) to the use of force in their little neighborhood. Anyway, if either of them want to be world powers, they should at least take an interest in what's happening right next door.

5) It's also false that this opperation is without precedent. The Cuban Missile Crisis was very much about a pre-emtive strike (granted, it would have triggered a nuclear war, but at the time we didn't know about the tactical nukes in Cuba, only the strategic ones). Nobody questions the wisdom of taking a stand now, since it all worked out and civilization didn't end. Also, the Spanish-American war was dubious at best. And there have been inumerable smaller operations in the Americas that were pretty shitty. This is not a defense of the current operation, of course, merely a response to your statement about this being the first pre-emptive war of conquest . . . someone more familiar with the Spanish-American War can maybe clear up any similarities or differences. Also, I doubt that "conquest" is what we're after here. But maybe if I knew exactly what you meant by that term, I'd be more certain.

6) The fact that we can't be everywhere detering everyone is not necessarily a reason to not be somewhere detering someone.

7) NATO's and the UN's demise is being reported a bit prematurely. Also we do have allies in this war. Japan is with us. Spain is also, and they will send specialist troops. The UK is obviously on our side. Even France has said they will join us in the event that WMDs are used on us, which at least will hopefully make Saddam think twice about it, if he hasn't already decided that such a move would make things worse (if possible) for him.

8) As for the countries representing their populations, this is a bit tricky. First you have polls, of which there are many, and what they supposedly show. Change the wording of the question and you've got a very different answer. Also, since the governments are duly elected, it's hard to justify this argument. There's a certain amount of trust that has to be given to officials, and when they breach that trust they need to be removed either by not re-electing them or impeaching them. But the House of Commons and the House of Representatives ostensibly DO represent the people, so I'm forced to disagree with this argument.

Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

I don't think the Cuban Missile crisis is the best comparison to make. This is not a crisis of superpowers nor is it about an immediate threat to the existence of man. Further the Kennedy administration put their best effort into a diplomatic solution, there was none of the lust for combat.
The contention that this war prevents terrorism or kills the possibility of Iraq passing NBC weapons to Al Queda are the weaker arguments to draw on. It remains far easier to get them in one of the former Soviet republics. Hell, Haliberton is missing some uranium from a storage shed in Nigeria.
Make the case for war on humanitarian grounds, that is where you are safest.