Iraq: Threat or Menace? It's your choice.

[Jack]

It's been 11 years and one Bush ago since we liberated the oil of Kuwait. Why turn resources from the al Queda hunt? Why was there no "link" established between al Queda and Saddam until Bush failed to rally the American people into a bloodthirsty frenzy?

Does the upcoming election have anything to do with this? The Republicans want the Senate back like a starving dog wants a Milk Bone. Republicans traditionally associate war=patriotism, so war would give them strength -- but this could backfire since support among Americans is wavering.

Cheney lobbied to loosen the embargo on Iraqi oil when he was in charge of his oil corporation. Does this have something to do with it?

But then again, maybe this is just a coincidence.

Remember the tale the gov't told about Iraqi's killing babies in Kuwait? Later, it turned out to be our propoganda. How much can we believe?

I'm just curious, why are we now hot and heavy to invade Iraq after all this time? Why is it we still don't have any real reason or tangible proof presented to us?

[Mark Asher]

I'm unsure of Bush's motives, but if the voters are thinking about terrorist threats and the security of the nation instead of the economy when they vote, he'll be happy.

My concern with a war is twofold:

1) I don't think we can take Baghdad without losing American lives and the lives of civilians in Baghdad. It's one thing to steamroll the Iraqi army in the desert; quite another to fight house to house in the streets.

2) I'm worried that it will create more enemies than it eliminates, as it would fan anti-American sentiment in many countries.

We don't have access to the information Bush et al have, though, so it's hard to know what's really going on. I wish Bush would produce more hard evidence, though.

[Jack]

I agree with your points, Mark. However, conservative pundits also like to cite the "black box" idea that we just don't know everything Bush knows; I find this argument to be flawed. If he had SOME real information to give (for instance when Cuba had nuclear missles), then it should be presented to Americans, especially Congress. The fact that he hasn't been forthcoming with anything other than political rhetoric ("A danger to the world!" "Another Hitler!" "He may someday have weapons of mass destruction!") seems to indicate another agenda is being attended to.

I heard today that Bush now asserts that terrorists have been harbored in Baghdad. Convenient that this should be mentioned now, isn't it? So if this is just coming to light, what was the motivation three months ago?

Oh, and if we're going to invade every country that may someday, somehow acquire weapons of mass destruction, why not invade every third-world nation? After all, they may someday sell their technology to terrorists. And why not invade Switzerland? How much terrorist money is being guarded in their banks?

Bush isn't a fool, but he's acting a bit like one. I tire of this administration treating us like children who don't really need to know their motivations. After all, we wouldn't understand them, would we?

[Anonymous]

I heard today that Bush now asserts that terrorists have been harbored in Baghdad. Convenient that this should be mentioned now, isn't it? So if this is just coming to light, what was the motivation three months ago?

Actually, this is nothing new. Those involved in the CT/AT/State Dept/DoD communities have know about it for years. Some of this information has already been revealed to the public. Suddenly, it seems like news. Go figure.


1) I don't think we can take Baghdad without losing American lives and the lives of civilians in Baghdad. It's one thing to steamroll the Iraqi army in the desert; quite another to fight house to house in the streets.

2) I'm worried that it will create more enemies than it eliminates, as it would fan anti-American sentiment in many countries.

Mark, US armed forces have been training for this particular theater for the last decade. It's not going to be the cluster everyone thinks it's going to be. MOUT has been high on the training schedules. This is no Somalia.

The anti-American sentiment already exists in certain areas. Fortunately, in the areas where US relations are important, things could be worse.

Raphael

[Jack]

SF, yes I absolutely believe that terrorists (al Queda, in particular) has been through Iraq and possibly purchasing equipment from Iraq. But that's my belief. Gut feeling isn't reason to invade a country.

If proof exists, it should be presented. My only comfort in this is that the administration hasn't outright lied to us when they damn well had the chance. Their silence has revealed honesty, if nothing else.

I agree with another poster in another thread: If we could just take out Saddam and neutralize his impending nuclear capability, I would be overjoyed. With an invasion, however, I believe we're beginning the cycle of hatred all over again. Terrorists will only proliferate as we invade these theocracies.

[Brian Rucker]

To folks that have been paying attention, yes, Baghdad has kept a scattering of ex-terrorists around on the off chance they might be useful for something. Abu Nidal comes to mind. Of course, he became inconvenient recently...

However, the new claim about Hussein training and offering support to Al Qaeda is spanking new. Hot off the presses. I was watching The News Hour when Condi came out with that one - almost an afterthought to another line of questioning. Rummy's been a little more heavy breathing with his implications but has, until now, had less to say.

The situation could be worse with our 'allies' in the region? They will be worse if we actually invade. As much as everyone in the region mistrusts Saddam they're far more worried about our long term intentions. Frankly, they should be. Either we're going to try to impose democracies in the region, the whole region, or at the very least we'll be undermining OPEC by controlling one of the largest (soon to be former) OPEC oil reserves.

And that's assuming the Kurds, Turks, Iranians or Israelis don't decide to complicate matters by pursuing their own regional agendas.

[Bub, Andrew]

Terrorists will only proliferate as we invade these theocracies.

Iraq isn't a theocracy. It's the most secular nation in that area. But the theocracies and religious idealogues you're talking about would strongly react to our invading Iraq this time. We'd basically be acting they way they expect/want us to. US, the great Satan, always picking on the weak. Another reason this needs to be a world action.

[Jack]

"To blow up his children, only proves him right," to quote Sting's "History will Teach us Nothing.

You're right, Bub. I caught myself imagining what America would be like with a Muslem, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or athiest president and came to the conclusion that we're as much of a theocracy as Iraq. I suppose having something other than a Christian president is the hurdle right after a woman and/or minority president.

[JeffL]

Without weighing in on the pros and cons of getting rid of Hussein, I find it odd/silly that there is so much hand-wringing over what the Muslim nations will think of us if we take out Saddam. They hate us already. No matter what face they put on. And most leaders in that region would be very happy to see Saddam removed - no matter what they have to say publically.

[Brian Rucker]

I'd tend to disagree with that statement. Saudi Arabia and, yes, even Kuwait were quiet allies of Saddam, as were we, during his war with Iran. Later revealed civilian satellite photos revealed that there never was an Iraqi build-up on Saudi Arabia's borders before Desert Storm. Sure, the Saudi's weren't thrilled with Iraq at that point but the reason they backed Iraq in that earlier war hasn't gone away. Saudi Arabia has its own Shiite population which happens to live - where the oil is. The last thing they want is a destabilized Iraq that could cause them yet more internal problems. A contained Saddam is in fact what the leadership, not just the street, wants.

Do I really give a shit what The House of Saud wants? No. They're at least indirectly far more culpable for 9/11 than Hussein could ever hope to be. A pack of bloated, jaded, aristocrats pandering utterly to a theocratic beaurocracy, who own what passes for the validity of thier divine rule, isn't going to win any points in my book. Of course, we're not going after them. At least not yet. But I'll bet after we have Iraq's oil fields we're suddenly going to get a whole lot less deferential and they know it.

Here's where the problem comes in - if we see public figures talking about a 'foothold' or 'outpost' of democracy in the Middle East when discussing Iraq's future (even if many of them don't exactly mean or want that) what's the implication for exisiting regimes? What conclusion can they draw? What does that mean for our chances at a successful occupation in Iraq?
Do we end up just stirring up yet more ire and bloodshed all around rather than accomplishing anything with a lasting benefit? Do we, as suggested above, simply radicalize yet more Muslim youth? Do we, further, alienate a world community that's already suspicious of our motives and actions? How many more nations will stumble into the category of enemy to be invaded and occupied? How much will they correspond to our, doubtless, expanding need for resources as we continue our arms race against the world (as described in 'The Bush Doctrine' statement)?

How long can we keep that up? Will an M1A1 in an oil field really protect us from enraged zealots with box cutters? Is that really the answer?

[Mark Asher]

There should be a lot of handwringing over going to war.

[JeffL]

There should be a lot of handwringing over going to war.

I agree. But my worries and concerns about war, in this case, have little to do with alienating nations that already would either secretly or publically cheer over future 9/11s.

[Brad Grenz]

Here's where the problem comes in - if we see public figures talking about a 'foothold' or 'outpost' of democracy in the Middle East when discussing Iraq's future (even if many of them don't exactly mean or want that) what's the implication for exisiting regimes? What conclusion can they draw? What does that mean for our chances at a successful occupation in Iraq?

Christ, we shouldn't invade because then democracy might spread? God forbid the rest of the middle east might be inspired to live as free peoples. I find that an occupation of Iraq might free us up enough to help topple corrupt regimes elsewhere is another plus side. They couldn't possbly hope to prevent us from occupying Iraq.

[algahar]

Remember the tale the gov't told about Iraqi's killing babies in Kuwait? Later, it turned out to be our propoganda. How much can we believe?


everyone has something to hide. its only natural that all govs do too.

something also along the line... would any gov open up all their territories for the UN inspectors to examine whatever they want ? but of course i cant compare iraq, thats on the list of evil axis, with the rest of the world, thats not yet on the list...

[Brian Rucker]

Here's where the problem comes in - if we see public figures talking about a 'foothold' or 'outpost' of democracy in the Middle East when discussing Iraq's future (even if many of them don't exactly mean or want that) what's the implication for exisiting regimes? What conclusion can they draw? What does that mean for our chances at a successful occupation in Iraq?

Christ, we shouldn't invade because then democracy might spread? God forbid the rest of the middle east might be inspired to live as free peoples. I find that an occupation of Iraq might free us up enough to help topple corrupt regimes elsewhere is another plus side. They couldn't possbly hope to prevent us from occupying Iraq.

And the North Vietnamese don't have a chance against our bombers. Think about the implications - at this point we're trying to do this alone and our boys will be surrounded by hostile states, not to mention a populace that will be highly suspicious, if not outright hostile towards (oil) our (oil) motives (oil) and that largely holds us responsible (rightly or wrongly) for tens of thousands of civilians dead as a result of UN sanctions.

What are the odds we're even going to get a chance to try democracy there? And what are the odds we really have any intention of trying it? In a democracy, sometimes, folks you don't like get elected. Iran did that back in '53 or so and, with some prompting by the British, we staged a coup and put the Shah in. Let's say the majority population of Shiites form a party with the platform of unification or alliance with the mullahs in Iran? Say the Kurds form a party with the goal of creating an independant Kurdistan? We're really going to sit back at clap our hands at the success of our experiment?

Let's not fool ourselves here - this isn't about democracy. While some folks, I believe sincerely, make that claim, the real reason is that we don't want a nuclear armed Saddam in a position to intimidate his OPEC partners into jacking oil prices. The funny thing is, those folks living in this 'threatened region' are far more worried about us than him.

If we want to spread democracy we should probably start by talking about food and clean drinking water. Then fair and open global trade. Then developmental organizations that can help countries create strong infrastructures and judiciaries. There are plenty of countries, and populations, that would welcome this without us having to bomb them into submission first.

[Anonymous]

Actually, everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey, I believe.

Getting rid of Saddam and destroying the Iraqi ability to make or disseminate chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons is a laudable goal, but it's the means to that end, and the presumed need for urgency, that's at dispute. No one likes Saddam, least of all his own people or his neighbors. There are two big issues to decide, though, involving any decision to settle the issue right now by overwhelming force.

One is the law of unintended consequences. True, you never know for sure what might happen in a war, but it seems to me that the administration is making the same sort of leaps of faith the German high command did prior to Barbarossa. Then, the Germans had little intelligence about the USSR and its capabilities, and what they did had didn't fit their preconceptions so they in effect ignored it. Here, we know the Iraqis can't stand up to us--that's not in dispute--but we have pretty much zero knowledge of what the consequences of such an attack might be. There are many indications, from our allies, regional powers, and others, that a US occupation of Iraq would destabilize the region even further, inflame areas that are as of yet only nominally resentful of the USA, and make cooperation on a host of issues very difficult in the Middle East and elsewhere. Yet the Bush administration dismisses all of this, because it doesn't fit the concept of a war of liberation for the Iraqis and the glorious spread of democracy (which, btw, won't happen--democracy in most Arab or Mulsim countries these days would mean Islamic fundamentalist rule; just look at Algeria and the elections that were rejected when they revealed the people actually wanted the radicals in charge).

Also part of the risk of unforseen consequences is the possibility that Saddam, a man who wants nothing so much as to stay alive and in charge, might actually use what NBC capability he has in a "use it or lose it (and everything else)" scenario. He's made it no secret that he's likely to draw Israel in in the event of a US attack, and we shouldn't blithely dismiss that threat just because we know the Israelis would wreak havoc on the Iraqis. Saddam has demonstrated that he'd gladly trade Iraqi lives and wealth for the prestige of being the great Arab martyr in the war against the infidels and Zionists. Whereas I think the last 11 years have shown that Baghdad isn't likely to do much as long as they know the consequences would be devastating to Hussein's tenure as dictator, if we present them with a fait accompli where his ouster is guaranteed, there's little to stop Saddam from pushing whatever buttons he can cobble together.

Then, there's the issue of unilateralism. For fifty years or more the foundation of US foreign policy has been multilateralism. It won the Cold War, built a free world alliance that has proven remarkably resilient, and has helped create a world where, despite constant low-level conflict, really big wars are extremely rare. It's the Leviathan that keeps the nasty and brutal state of nature that Hobbes wrote about from becoming the norm. Now we're casting that away in favor of a doctrine that essentially supports a policy of preemption based on assumptions of threat. Leaving aside the generally abysmal record of our intelligence services from the Korean War onward in predicting threats, this new unilateralist policy has a lot of problems. For one, we've always reserved this right of preemption; every nation does. They just don't trumpet it as the first choice, but let it be understood as a last resort. This is to make sure the world handles things in a more or less civilized fashion, because form does matter as much as function--even if you are going to fight someone, it makes sense and mitigates the aftermath if you go through procedures. Second, it does, contrary to the administration's protestations, establish a precedent of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we can do it, so can anyone else from China to India to Russia to Iran. The only way you can argue that this isn't so is to postulate that the US is somehow sui generis, a thing unique to itself. While we may personally believe that the US represents the best in the world--and personally I tend to think it does--it's hardly reasonable to expect everyone else in the world to agree. And that's what we're doing with this policy, asking the world to accept that because we're the good guys they have nothing to fear.

No, the twin problems of unilateralism and unintended consequences bother me a bit. I have no problem with the current Iraqi regime vanishing into the desert, nor with the idea of military action to accomplish this per se. But the current administration seems to have read too many Tom Clancy novels, and seems enamored of a very scary supermacho vision of the world. It's as if the folks who always hated the UN and always wanted us to act as the new Roman Empire--after all if they're going to hate us why not do the things we want and get the benefits of being a real imperialist power--have finally gained the means to implement their ideas. In their eyes, multilateralism is a weakness, unilateral exercise of military power means strength, and there are no problems that smart bombs and Delta Force can't handle.

Every empire has faded over time; ours probably will too. But more importantly, what goes around comes around. If we want a world where violence will eventually fade and order prevail, we need to go about our own application of violence and disorder with some circumspection. War is sometimes the only way to get things done, but I'm not at all sure that this is the right war at the right time. It's more like, having failed to get Bin Laden and failed to resolve the war with Al Quaida, we've turned to a much more locatable and destructible foe. Kind of like when in Somalia we decided that Addid was the Ultimate Bad Guy when we couldn't puzzle out how Somalia really worked.

It will, I'm sure, be very interesting in the coming months.

[chet]

It of course isn't personal:

And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."


http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/bush.war.talk/index.html

Chet

[Dave Long]

OMG...talk about feeding the flames of dissent. I've never liked Bush and I make no secret of that fact. But this takes the cake. Who's war is this? His own personal crusade? Or maybe this is a war his dad is really trying to run from the sidelines, or should I say his retirement home.

Man...the world will chew that up and spit it out. The Democrats will blast him from here to Tuesday...and rightfully so. What an asinine thing to say. As President of the United States, he must be above personal vendettas. But hey...the people elected him...or did they?

--Dave

[JeffL]

OK - all the predictions of gloom and doom and how much over our heads we will be if we try to depose Saddam are all over the airwaves. Kennedy is saying we could lose a battalion a day, etc. Much like the predictions that we would lose a hundred thousand troops going against the battle hardened Republican Guard in '91. Much like everyone predicted that we would be destroyed in the mountain fighting in Afghanistan the way the Russians were for 10 years. And so on.

But even if we assume that we would only lose a relatively few people in removing Saddam, I agree that that is still people and families to whom that person is the only one that matters. War of any kind should not be a cavalier decision.

But - what's the alternative? For all of those criticising the decision to do something decisive, what is the alternative? Continue to do nothing? Iraqi defectors in a position to know, along with other intelligence reports, make it clear that Saddam is urgently pursuing nuclear capabilities, and is close. Not to mention biological and chemical capabilities. So - what is the alternative proposal? Allow this maniac to just keep developing these capabilities? Do a lot of reading about the guy - do you want him to have advanced nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities? Do you want him to be able to supply terrorists with these capabilities? Look at the photographs of the villages with the men, women and children lying in the streets with their tongues hanging out, victims of his previous attacks on his own people who didn't fit his ethnic preferences. Do we stick our head in the sand and hope he becomes a rational and ethical man?

Weapons inspections will be the joke they have always been in Iraq. Anyone who thinks this is going to be the solution is, well, either ignorant or an idiot. Even the inspectors say that you can't find well hidden capabilities within the constraints that inspectors are given. So - the choice is to either do something, or to decide that if the U.N. nations decide to stick their head in the sand (which they have done, and which they have been happy to do, and which wouldn't even be discussing this issue had Bush not stood up and asked them if they wanted to continue to be irrelevant due to their lack of action on their own resolutions or if they wanted to suddenly become something more than a collection of folks who whine about how unfair the world is to them) that we will also stick our head in the sand.

What am I missing? What is a real alternative to taking action?

[Bub, Andrew]

Building a coalition and getting a UN resolution to that effect. If this case is as easy to build as you're saying here Jeff (it isn't, there's contrary evidence you're ignoring), then why are do so many prominent people disagree with Bush? And if you think it's just democrats disagreeing, then, you're listening to too much talk radio. I don't think we should ever let the US go to war, risk it's soldiers, without knowing the evidence they claim to have but also claim needs to be kept secret.

[JeffL]

We've got U.N resolutions, dozens. They're incredibly effective, aren't they? And the U.N. has shown their strength and resolve in supporting them. They were absolutely outraged and showed their might as about a half million Rwandan men, women and children were massacred while they watched and - well, just watched. They have proven their resolve and ability to decide as a body to do the right thing over and over, and I really do think we should take our lead from them. Sheesh.

Yeah, I get my info from talk radio. I sit in my 67 pickup with my hounddog and gun rack and spit chawin' tobaacer and lissen to the radio and get my opinions from there. Sheesh. Give me a little credit for having just a wee bit of education and thought process. What credible evidence is there that Saddam hasn't killed thousands of his own people with chemical weapons because they were the "wrong" culture? That was all faked? What is the credible evidence that he isn't pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, advanced biological weapons and chemical weapons? He harrassed and gave the weapons inspectors the run-arond and hindered them because....? One of the top terrorist on the planet got killed in his safe house a few weeks ago, let's see, where was that, Bagdhad?

You're right Andrew. Let's let the U.N. pass more resolutions; it's been so effective in the past. And let's let Germany and Russia and China and Syria decide what we should do.

[Bub, Andrew]

Jeff, come on now, it was clear I was talking about a UN resolution to invade Iraq. Like the one President Bush worked so hard to build and maintain before we invaded Iraq in 1990?
Yeah, like that one.

As for evidence I'm talking about all the people worldwide who are demanding evidence and proof WMD are imminent, or what that former UN weapons inspector making the rounds on talk shows (even if he's questionable, he certainly is informed) has to say, I'm talking about all the US Generals who don't like this idea (or didn't last summer), and about Secretary of State Powell's concerns. About how one expert says he'll have a nuke in 2 years and another says 10 years and still another says he'll never get the materials. This isn't as clear cut an argument as you're post describes.

As for your weirdly defensive diatribe regarding my talk radio comment, you read way more into that than was intended Jeff. Way more. Still, if you think do think that it's just Democrats who are against Bush on this (which is what I actually said)... pat that hound dawg on the head fer me pard. :wink:

[Jason McCullough]

One "alternative course of action" is to sit back and ignore Saddam. Even if he does get nukes, he's just as deterrable as the USSR ever was. All the bomb gets him is the ability to die of old age (well, and somewhat increased regional political influence).

He certainly won't invade Kuwait under a "nuclear shield" as some people have said, as the USSR didn't do that with West Germany. You only play nuclear chicken when you're suicidial, which is really out of character for Saddam.

[Jason McCullough]

I think by "top terrorist recently killed in Iraq," you mean Abu Nidal.

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/abunidal.html

According to news reports I saw, it's pretty likely Saddam himself offed him.

Nidal's only complaint with the west appears to be Israel, so he's not much of a threat to us.

If this is the sort of thing that's worth invading to stop, then Syria should be next on the list.

[JeffL]

So some people think that allowing Saddam, who already has chemical weapons and biological weapons, to acquire nuclear capability is just A-OK? That he'll behave in a logical and sane manner? That we won't regret allowing this maniac to have these capabilities? That we can judge how he will behave by the manner in which Russia behave?

[Jason McCullough]

Yep. Feel free to explain how he's previously acted in a suicidal manner, though. The only supporting data point I'm aware of was that 1991 attempt on Bush I's life.

The question isn't "should we let him have nuclear weapons," it's weighing the costs of him getting them (surprisingly minimal) vs. the costs of preventing it (surprisingly large).

[JeffL]

This is where you and I will disagree on the interpretation of the data. I believe that the costs of a Saddam with that much power at his fingertips (and the ability to empower others similarly) will be far too high.

[Jack]

Much like everyone predicted that we would be destroyed in the mountain fighting in Afghanistan the way the Russians were for 10 years.

The Russians were foiled because we were feeding the Afgans weapons. If the US and Brits are the only ones to go into Iraq, who will be helping Iraq from the shadows? Russians? Chinese?

America is a powerful country, but the Chinese have stopped us before. As wars go, we've been rather fortunate in picking our battles since Vietnam; I sincerely hope we don't need that lesson again.

And another point that is at issue here is the sovereignty of nations. Aside from the recent convenient al Qaeda tale told by our administration, Saddam has made no direct or indirect threat to the US. Nations exist as entities unto themselves; if he's slaughtering his people, it's the Iraqi people who must rise up and change their nation. For us to go in and impose a western-style government is idiocy. If every Iraqi were oppressed and unhappy, Saddam certainly wouldn't have been able to stay alive all this time.

It's about oil. It's about politics. It's about Bush #41 getting egg on his face. It's about the possibility that Saddam might give al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction. This isn't a war of good and evil; it's not about morality. It's about our fear.

As said in an earlier post, all empires fall. All fallen empires over-extended themselves, became arrogant and rotted from within. I hope the US won't follow this path in my lifetime, but this path will be followed as it always is.

OK, it's time for my anti-depressant meds. Excuse me, the nurse is calling.

[Jason McCullough]

It's not the data; I just can't construct any sort of motivational framework for Saddam where he'll commit suicide-by-nuke, other than "he's crazy," which is inconsistent with his past actions.

[JeffL]

Saddam may have already committed suicide by refusing to allow inspectors in with unfettered access. He came close to comitting suicide when he went into Kuwait. You credit him with far more lucidty than I do.

[Sean Tudor]

Why doesn't some secret agent type just infiltrate Baghdad and cap Saddam using a sniper rifle. Surely it can't be that hard.

[Brad Grenz]

One "alternative course of action" is to sit back and ignore Saddam. Even if he does get nukes, he's just as deterrable as the USSR ever was. All the bomb gets him is the ability to die of old age (well, and somewhat increased regional political influence).

That's great, if he lives forever, and you DON'T LIVE IN IRAQ. Once he has the bomb, you really think it'll saty in Iraq? Even if he isn't handing out suitcase bombs the information will be for sale. Bombs could be for sale, doesn't have to be small if you just want to put it on a Tanker and detonate it in a major port city. And once he's gone, then what? Then we swoop in and take over? Or will we be deterring the next guy, or several guys who take over/share the arsenal? Will they all be egomaniacs too?


Why doesn't some secret agent type just infiltrate Baghdad and cap Saddam using a sniper rifle. Surely it can't be that hard.

You think it hasn't been tried? The guys a paranoiac. Plus, technically the US doesn't participate in assasinations.

[Jason McCullough]

Brad, I imagine the 100k civilians that'll be killed by us invading Iraq might object to the invasion; that's how many died in the last war, right? War is a losing proposition on a strictly casualty count basis for Iraqi citizens. Maybe they'd like us to invade anyway, I don't know; but if you're trying to minimize deaths, lifting the sanctions would be the way to do it, not invading.

'Bombs could be for sale, doesn't have to be small if you just want to put it on a Tanker and detonate it in a major port city.'

Except that its virtually a certainty we'd have enough information to prove he did it and nuke Baghdad in response. Russia & China have been proven rational by time, which leaves one guy by the process of elimination; it's suicide-by-nuke all over again.

'And once he's gone, then what? Then we swoop in and take over?'

Correct.


Saddam may have already committed suicide by refusing to allow inspectors in with unfettered access. He came close to comitting suicide when he went into Kuwait. You credit him with far more lucidty than I do.

There's a pretty strong case that he thought we wouldn't care, based on some particularly ill-advised comments by the U.S. ambassador at the time.

Regardless, refusing inspections and invading unallied non-nuclear powers are things that carry the chance of him dying at less than 100%; if the gain is big enough, he might well take the risk. There's exactly a 0% chance he could use a nuke and live, by contrast, which is why I no more expect him to nuke us than China to do so.

[Brad Grenz]

Brad, I imagine the 100k civilians that'll be killed by us invading Iraq might object to the invasion

Yes, you are imagining the 100K civilians being killed.

[Jason McCullough]

That's the number a few human rights organizations estimated, which includes deaths from starvation, disease, etc. due to the war; the DIA produced comparable numbers.

Baghdad estimates it at 35k, oddly, and Jane's says 1,500.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg00006.html

[Chris Floyd]

I'll tell you the problem with the deterrence solution: The Iraqi people continue to starve and be manhandled by a megalomaniac regime. Don't give me that horse puckey about it being the fault of the sanctions... When Saddam has a different palace and/or bunker to sleep in every night, gratuitous public murals of his image, etc. etc. it's absurd to say he can't feed his people himself. If we decide that Iraq can just sit pretty with nuclear weapons and be deterred when we could have kicked Hussein out then history will judge us pretty harshly, I believe. Sure, people in the USSR were starving too, but a war with the Soviets is obviously a FAR different thing.

[Anonymous]

Well, Saddam calculated poorly but not disastrously in his invasion of Kuwait; job one for him is staying in power and arguably he was more secure in 1992 than in 1982. There's little evidence to suggest he'd actually use weapons of mass destruction on anyone besides Iran or his own people (nasty as that is); he's been threatening to send an army to Jerusalem whenever the Arab states next to Israel give him passage, but few take that threat seriously, for example.

Still, I agree this fellow is Bad News and the prospect of Iraq with nukes is not a happy one. The debate really isn't over whether we will have to use force to disarm Saddma, but rather how we go about it. Most would agree that getting rid of the current Iraqi regime (assuming, a big if, we can replace it something better that doesn't entail a permanent occupation) would be a Good Thing. More would agree that getting rid of Iraq's capacity to use or provide NBC weapons to people is pretty important. But ultimately if the goal is US security we have to consider all aspects of security.

That's where the UN and multilateralism comes in. It's not so much what we do but how we do it. Everyone knows we are going to attack Iraq, one way or another. It is vital that we go through the motions of acknowledging the rule of law. Ample legal reason exists for intervention based on Iraq's failure to adhere to the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement and subsequent UN resolutions. All we really need to do is to make it clear that we are taking the views of others into consideration and working within a UN framework. Agreed, the UN dropped the ball terribly when it failed to act decisively last decade (General Clark has said that we actually had a better moral and legal case for war in 1996-8 period when Saddam defied the UN, and he's probably right), but there's still time to have that body grow a pair of cojones.

Everyone knows we will do it alone if we have to, so in the long run it's best to use that power to cajole everyone else along. Yes, it will mean a delay, and probably a period of jerking around by Saddam and his flunkies, but in the end the result will be an invasion by the US and Britain. If we go through the motions though, it will be with the acquiesence at least of the world, and minimal disruption on the diplomatic front. Going it alone without even really trying will be counterproductive, especially as there is no immediate threat from Iraq.

Yep, that's what I said: no immediate threat. It's a nasty country led by a mean bastard, but hell, we've lived with lots of nasty nations and terrible tyrants for long periods of time. I'm not saying let it go on indefinitely--it's too expensive and risky. But there's no need to go around trying to scare everyone into thinking Saddam is RIGHT NOW THIS MINUTE meeting with Bin Laden and showing him how to make a nuke or something.

[Mark Asher]

I'll just say this: If Bush attacks without the consent of Congress, I'd consider that illegal and a much more impeachable offense than Clinton ever committed. It's one thing to use force to respond to an attack against our nation -- I doubt anyone begrudges the President that option. But the Constitution clearly states that the consent of Congress is needed to declare war, and in this current situation with Bush premeditating an attack, he should seek Congressional approval. If he doesn't get it, than the representative democracy has spoken. He's not a king. He's the head of a government that has rules that bind his hand.

[Jason McCullough]

I'll tell you the problem with the deterrence solution: The Iraqi people continue to starve and be manhandled by a megalomaniac regime. Don't give me that horse puckey about it being the fault of the sanctions... When Saddam has a different palace and/or bunker to sleep in every night, gratuitous public murals of his image, etc. etc. it's absurd to say he can't feed his people himself. If we decide that Iraq can just sit pretty with nuclear weapons and be deterred when we could have kicked Hussein out then history will judge us pretty harshly, I believe. Sure, people in the USSR were starving too, but a war with the Soviets is obviously a FAR different thing.

As tempting as it is to base U.S. foreign policy on getting Rid Of The Baddies, it's an invitation to get manipulated.

"Ooh, he's very bad! We need to invade!"
(6 months pass)
"Wait a minute, where's the democracy you promised? Why is the country being ruled by an unelected oil crony?"

That's a good summary of Afghanistan. Yes, on balance, I'm all for getting rid of Saddam if a) the region doesn't disintegrate in the process, which I haven't been convinced of and b) if we don't take too many casualties, which I haven't been convinced of either.

I think it's dangerous to use the "insane nuclear boogeyman" argument, though, as it's completely wrong, and leads to all sorts of bad precedents.

[Brad Grenz]

I swear to god, McCullough, what kind of a warped fancy pants insano land do you live in? There's an interime regime in place in Afghanistan right now and the elections are planned for 2004. What, you thought they'd set up polling locations the day the Taliban was ousted? You thought Florida's elections were a clusterfuck...

As for you BS, 100K we killed in Persian Gulf #1 numbers, get over yourself. For one, those are estimates of casulaties we did not cause. These are deaths Saddam had every opprotunity to prevent. He was just as happy to build a new palace each week and pour money into weapons research. Not to mention punish rebellious communities. And even if we are going to pretend the sanctions contributed to the plight of the civilians there, those are UN Endorsed. We didn't act unilaterally to put trade sanctions in place, nor could we.

I've had just about enough of you. Where's Raphael? Tag me out!

[Jason McCullough]

I swear to god, McCullough, what kind of a warped fancy pants insano land do you live in? There's an interime regime in place in Afghanistan right now and the elections are planned for 2004. What, you thought they'd set up polling locations the day the Taliban was ousted? You thought Florida's elections were a clusterfuck...


Karzai's control doesn't extend outside of the capital. I have no idea how he's going to set up elections, unless the U.S. goes around knocking off (which we should) all the warlords.



As for you BS, 100K we killed in Persian Gulf #1 numbers, get over yourself. For one, those are estimates of casulaties we did not cause. These are deaths Saddam had every opprotunity to prevent. He was just as happy to build a new palace each week and pour money into weapons research. Not to mention punish rebellious communities. And even if we are going to pretend the sanctions contributed to the plight of the civilians there, those are UN Endorsed. We didn't act unilaterally to put trade sanctions in place, nor could we.

I've had just about enough of you. Where's Raphael? Tag me out!

Just because the UN agreed to the sanctions neither makes them effective or right.

[Brad Grenz]

So, by default we are the only ones culpable? That's a load of shit. You said the US killed 100,000 civilian in the first conflict. It is an absolutely unsupportable claim and an obscene distortion of reality. It's Iraqi/Fundementalist propaganda and we both know it. You may not agree with agression towards Iraq, but you can't win the argument by abandoning reality.

[Jason McCullough]

Of course we're not entirely to blame, but those bodies aren't all Saddams.

[Brian Rucker]

The problem is, Mark, that congress is more than happy to let Bush get by without having to declare war. They're looking for political cover too and, if things go wrong, having such a declaration on your resume could be damaging. Give him something vague but make sure he kisses the ring to get it - a token gesture is better than none I guess.

Our system is so broken, sometimes, it's amazing we've turned out as well as we have.

[Anonymous]

You know, one way to really put all of this on a sound footing, domestically at least, would indeed be to ask for a declaration of war. If, as the administration says, Iraq poses such a threat as to demand military action in the very near term, and is a long and short-term threat to our security, we should declare war--we've done so in the past without being attacked directly (WWI, Spanish-American War, the War of 1812). The constraints of the Cold War no longer apply, and a declaration of war doesn't mean nuclear conflagration. I realize this is very unlikely to happen, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless.

The papers today had headlines saying Iraq was refusing to allow inspections of its palaces (so much for unconditional inspections I suppose). If true, the US case gets stronger, as Saddam is obligated to allow the UN to inspect wherever it damn well pleases (it's complicated by some deal the Secretary General worked out, though, to exempt the palaces, which dates back to last decade as I understand it). By invading Kuwait and, more importantly, losing the war, Iraq forfeited a sizeable portion of its sovereignty. The arguments from Baghdad about inspections and sanctions and no-fly zones violating said sovereignty are specious, as a result.

The question is not whether the UN has a moral and procedural justification for force against Iraq--it does. It's whether the UN outside of the US and the UK actually wants to enforce the cease fire agreement and corresponding requirements. Evidence suggests that a good chunk of the Security Council in fact has no interest in enforcing the terms of the cease fire though. Whether that's because of economic ties, unease over growing US power, the Arab-Israeli dispute, or other reasons isn't clear, but it does seem that there's a decided reluctance in the UN to enforce what's already been decreed.

It could well be that the US sees the world in a very different light than many of the other UN members (doh!). What we see as threats and problems other nations take as a matter of course--or take as threats to us and not to them, and therefore are not concerned. It makes a tough situation even tougher. While I'm very concerned over the current administration's methods and much of its logic, I have to agree that the UN has dropped the ball over the past decade and that it is indeed time to something about Iraq. Where I have difficulty is deciding whether it is advisable for us to take unilateral (or near unilateral) action if the UN proves unwilling. I'm afraid that would end the usefullness of the UN as an international peace making and keeping body, and help isolate the US. On the other hand, it's not acceptable to allow Iraq do do what it's been doing.

[Jason McCullough]

Congress didn't even officially declare war in 1991; it's a wierd artifact of our political system that (at least in in modern times), Congress officially declaring war is nothing but a political downer for them. They always end up passing some sort of "resolution."

[Anonymous]

I think it's an unfortunate trend, to ignore the constitutionally prescribed state of hostilities (war) in favor of more informal "uses of force." War has gravity, seriousness, and sobriety; going to war is an important and solemn thing. Using force is just another policy tool. The results may well be the same, on the ground, but for our society the results are rather different.

If something is worth fighting over, and we have the time to debate it ad nauseum, I think a declaration of war is in order perhaps.

[Chris Floyd]

"Ooh, he's very bad! We need to invade!"
(6 months pass)
"Wait a minute, where's the democracy you promised? Why is the country being ruled by an unelected oil crony?"

Um, if this is what's happening in Afghanistan, then I'm curious to know the name of this reputed "oil crony"?

[Jason McCullough]

"Ooh, he's very bad! We need to invade!"
(6 months pass)
"Wait a minute, where's the democracy you promised? Why is the country being ruled by an unelected oil crony?"

Um, if this is what's happening in Afghanistan, then I'm curious to know the name of this reputed "oil crony"?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=karzai+oil

Any of those will work.

[Brian Rucker]

Hey, while scanning those links I found an article on the 'oil factor' (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734325243.html) from last Saturday's Sidney Herald newspaper.

[Chris Floyd]

For all those starting to be persuaded by the "it's all about oil" thesis, here's a fellow who's not stupid (and not conservative) telling you why you are. Stupid, that is. Unfortunately, it requires a brief registration to read.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021007&s=trb100702

[Jason McCullough]

Iraq isn't about oil, but I honestly don't know what to think about Afghanistan. Ted Rall's got a disturbingly convincing article up about that:

http://scalzi.com/w020919.htm

And here's a rebuttal of some of the things it talks about in the liberal American Prospect:

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html

Disturbingly, I find Rall more convincing.