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/...alk/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.