So say old dying Saddam decides to go out in a blaze of glory and nuke New York, knowing he is dead anyway won’t deter him.
About time I replied to this one. We have been bombing parts of Iraq for quite some time. So one way to look at it is that the war has already begun. Also, I will be very surprized if war is avoided, but we shall see.
This isn’t about the War on Terror. Its about almost everything but the War on Terror. The first and most important, and ultimately most short sighted, goal was to be seen as Doing Something. Protecting America. And, yes, the election was the dominant factor in that decision.
This is about having something to do with the biggest military machine ever. We clobbered Afghanistan because that was a target, after a while the people began to see victory over the Taliban as a victory over Terror. It was no such thing, the Taliban were little more than a bunch of narrow minded ignorant religious bigots. Even if they knew where Bin Laden was, even if they had ordered him to leave the country, they couldn’t have enforced thier orders. But they could be attacked, and something would be seen as Being Done.
America has a huge military advantage, and, like the saying goes, when all you’ve got is a hammer, you see all problems as nails. But in a War Against Terror, a huge and powerful military is of no advantage. Deterance is of no value against a man who doesn’t care if he dies.
An elephant need not fear a lion. Certainly not a bee. Nor 10 bees. A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? At a certain point, the elephants strength only makes his doom more pathetic. If he can find the tree where they swarm, perhaps he can crush it. But if there are ten such trees? A hundred?
America cannot lose the War on Terrorism either. Terror is a political weapon, a propaganda weapon. But as a strategic weapon it is useless. Worse than useless, it enrages an enemy without weakening him. One hundred repeats of 9/11 would be horrible, and tragic. But it would have no real effect on America’s power. Terror is the expression of power of the powerless, and it is futile.
Bush has too much invested in this to back away empty handed, he must have a victory. He cannot let the UN gain the center stage, which he is why he repeatedly insists that if the UN wont go with him, he’ll go alone. If the UN inspectors inspect, and Saddam cooperates, he will hand Saddam a huge propaganda victory, as well as gaining him enormous sympathy. Bush cannot, and will not, permit this to happen. There will be a “material breach”, there will be an incident, there will be war. Even if he has to stand there and tell bald faced lies, he will do it. He already has. He’s in too deep. And the only possible light at the bottom of the pit is military victory, and “regime change”. If he doesn’t come galumphing back with Saddams head on a stick, he goes down in history as a warmongering fool.
2004? He’d be lucky to escape impeachment.
…From Geo Washington’s Farewell Address
My personal opinion is that if the old man were to rise from the dead and see the current situation he would recognize it as a case of the above.
We do have a national interest in Iraq, that of oil, of course. So that’s why we’re there. Humanitarian reasons, of course, have nothing whatever to do with it.
Iraq is now bottled up and no threat to anyone, least of all us. A simple blockade if they harass the inspectors would be more than enough to make opposition to those inspectors crumble, and blockading Iraq is amazingly easy, given the geography of their outlet to the sea. A blockade is an act of war, of course, but it’s a limited act of war. It would be appropriate to the level of crisis as well.
What’s going on here is a grudge match, nothing more. Iraq didn’t attack NYC and DC and kill 3000 civilians. There’d be way more reason to attack Saudi Arabia for that than to attack Iraq. (Not that I’m suggesting it.) There’s no reason to treat them like they did, other than that Bush fils figures on finishing the job Bush pere began. In other words, a war instigated by “pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.”
Besides all of this, the war part will be easy. Wait until the occupation begins. That’s when the true cost of this easily avoidable war will hit home, quite possibly literally.
You say:
“A nuclear-armed Iraq may be deterred from dropping nukes on Israel by us and Israel, but the rest of the world would be deterred from preventing Iraq from engaging in conventional aggression. Imagine Saddam invading Kuwait again, and threatening to blow up Tel Aviv if anyone tried to liberate that country.”
This is like saying that if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe conventionally, we would have to do nothing because they had nuclear weapons.
One last little thought tonight, you say:
“You’ve lost your moral high ground here. You are in favor of a war to overthrow Saddam, but you would rather have Iraqis die in that war than US soldiers.”
Yes I would. It is not our responsibility to liberate every country with a dictator, whether he is cruel or halfway benign. It is enough that we help. The people of these countries ought to take at least some of the responsibility for their own liberation. Otherwise, I think the “liberation” is much less likely to work.
And with that I shall say goodnight all.
Can you tell me how you know the emotional state of the people of Iraq?
All I know is what I read. Iraq can be a hard nut to crack because it’s a police state. But I’ve learned to trust Kristof of the NY times, reference 8 of the OP. I wish I could find more of his articles. It also seems reasonable that, at least where the US is concerned, Iraqi attitude/emotion will be the same or worse than general Arab attitude/emotion. On that I offer the following:
http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/October/world/028BB5FE71.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2239277.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2436611.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2210241.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1552900.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/968941.stm
I don’t forswear buying furniture because the furniture store’s purpose is to make money off me…
Who gives a rat’s ass about “purpose”? I’m talking about effect. Do you assert that the genocide of the Ma’dan will continue after a successful invasion of Iraq?
Yes, Bush hasn’t mentioned the Ma’dan, and I have large problems with Bush’s rhetoric and diplomatic approach.
But so what? So his purpose for going after Iraq isn’t my purpose. As long as the result is the end of genocide and the end of totalitarian rule, I’m happy.
As for your Afghanistan analogy, three points.
First, your assertion that post-Soviet Afghanistan was worse than Afghanistan under Soviet occupation is patently ludicrous. 1980’s - chaos, breakdown of order, internecine fighting, and military occupation by a foreign power.
1990s - chaos, breakdown of order, internecine fighting.
Second, the analogy is inapt. In Afghanistan, the U.S. did not invade, had no troops on the ground, etc. All the U.S. could have done to help restore order was to throw money at a government that was more interested in fighting rivals then establishing the rule of law and an infrastructure. IOW, not much.
If the U.S. invades Iraq, it will have troops on the ground and the ability to take control. Things just might work a bit better.
Third, blaming the U.S. for Afghanistan’s problems after the Soviets left is very paternalistic. Many countries have thrown out a foreign ruler - often with foreign help - and haven’t descended into chaos afterwards. The U.S. may have been able to help, but the responsibility lies with the Afghans for their own lives.
Sua
Sua, you misunderstand my point about Afghanistan. When the Soviets pulled out, they left a power vacuum that was promptly filled by rival warlords trying to grab power. The resulting civil wars killed (I believe) hundreds of thousands of people, and paved the way for the Taliban to take control. When the Taliban first took over, women put wreaths of flowers around their necks and cheered them in the streets*, grateful that someone was putting a stop to all the rape and killing.
None of this was the United States’ fault in any way – blaming the U.S. wasn’t the point of the analogy. The point is if we topple Saddam without a realistic plan for what comes next (which we don’t have right now), a similar situation could very easily occur. A decade of sanctions and anti-U.S. propaganda has left the Iraqi population very unfriendly to the U.S. – I expect our ground troops will have a very difficult time maintaining any order whatsoever, let alone get cooperation in building a stable new government.
Considering the racial tensions in the region, a power vacuum is not likely to decrease the suffering of minority ethnic groups in Iraq.
- From a first-person account of an Afghani woman I heard on NPR.
Sua,
Why don’t you tell us how many people are being actually killed in the “ongoing genocide” and compare that to likely civilian casualties in a full-blown war?.
Not that that alone would justify war since there are ample pragamatic reasons to avoid one.
“This is like saying that if the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe conventionally, we would have to do nothing because they had nuclear weapons.”
Exactly. The whole argument that if Iraq acquires nukes it is able to launch conventional attacks with impunity is bogus and not backed up by history.
In fact there is a very recent example to the contrary:Pakistan and Kargil. A few years ago Pakistani troops and varioius irregulars grabbed a piece of the Indian part of Kashmir. Under a “nuclear blackmail” scenario Pakistan could have said to India “if you try to defend Kargil we will nuke Delhi”. But of course such threats are not credible and India fought back and ultimately Pakistan had to withdraw.
And in many ways Iraq is in an even weaker position than Pakistan:
1)Any nuclear weapons that it acquires are likely to be very crude and the delivery systems even cruder.
2)It is conventionally much weaker than Pakistan . It is doubtful whether the Iraqi military would even risk invading ,say, Kuwait considering that US air power,now much stronger than during the Gulf War, alone would probably cripple such an invading force.
3)It can’t even credibly threaten to launch the nukes agains the US mainland whereas the US can credibly threaten the instant anhillation of Baghdad.
And anyway there is no reason why inspectors can’t find and destroy Iraqi nuclear weapons considering that they did so last time. Certainly hawks have failed to demonstrate this.
BTW do the propoments of the “nuclear blackmail” scenario also believe that South Korea is now doomed? After all N Korea probably has a few nukes. So it could threaten Seoul and then attack South Korea with impunity, right? Strangely enough few, if any, people seem to believe this is likely.
This isn’t to say that a nuclear Saddam isn’t a problem; it’s just not the catastrophe that hawks claim it is. It is worth trying to prevent but only through a moderate-cost solution like inspections.
I don’t care. To consider the question gives those who wish to commit genocide a shield under which to commit their genocide: “if you try to stop me, I’ll make sure there are extensive civilian casualties.”
Well, here we reach the unbridgeable chasm. To me, there are no “pragmatic” reasons that should stop those who are capable of preventing genocide from doing so.
This whole discussion has me distressed. I honestly thought that “never again” had inculcated itself far enough into our collective psyches that we would never find “pragmatic” reasons not to stop genocide. Rwanda should have given me pause, but I always excused that on the grounds that it happened so fast it would have been extremely difficult to stop.
I really don’t mean this to be offensive, but I think your attitude represents a demeaning of our collective humanity.
Sua
So, Giraffe if there was a realistic plan for the post-war, would you support a war against Iraq?
Sua
No, I still wouldn’t. I object to starting a war with Iraq for multiple reasons, of which this is only one – I think it sets a dangerous international precident and will hurt our national security in the long run. However, I think the lack of a post-war plan is a major problem, so I would see if as a big improvement in the current situation, even if I don’t support it.
Um, in the links you posted, 300,000 people were displaced into refugee camps. It doesn’t give numbers as to how many were killed, but I think if it were even in the thousands, they would have mentioned it. Personally, I wouldn’t call this a genocide, I wouldn’t equate it with Rwanda or the Holocaust, and I certaintly wouldn’t imply that stopping it is a moral imperative to the point that it doesn’t matter how many innocent Iraqi civilians are killed in the process.
It’s one more example of how Saddam is an evil motherfucker, no doubt about it. But it doesn’t give us an excuse to disregard civilian casualties.
Incidentally, the last estimate I heard by a military analyst put the probable casualties from a ground invasion of Baghdad at 500,000.
Since the editor is out I’ll repost this way. The changes are in bold and there are 5 new references.
15 reasons to stop this war
- Far too few Americans support this war.
According to the latest Zogby poll only 39% of Americans favor this war if “thousands of casualties” is included in the question** and “thousands of casualties” is likely, reference 9 and 10. A recent Pew Center poll shows that support for the war has slipped to only 55%, reference 13.**
- War with Iraq is not justifiable from a national security stand point:
Saddam has had weapons of mass destruction for 19 years and has never used them on US personnel. There’s no reason to think his behavior will change, unless we go to war. The report that he’s about to get the atomic bomb has been discredited. Even if true, there are other ways to stop this.
- Saddam is not significantly linked to al Queda:
It goes against common sense to think so. Saddam cares about Saddam, not Islamic fundamentalist revolution. He fought a war against the Ayatollahs of Iran. He has killed mullahs in his country. And the evidence of links are puny.
- Bush’s war talk is a political mistake in the Arab world and; therefore, a mistake in the war on terror:
Arabs often watch Israeli solders killing and maiming Palestinians on al Jazeera tv, pictures we never see. Arab anger at Israel and the US is at fever pitch. Bush’s war talk fuels this anger. This is bound to favor al Queda recruitment, reference 11 and 14.
- Saddam is a horrible dictator but:
If we are going to start fighting wars on a humanitarian basis we have a lot of explaining to do. We’ve done little about the humanitarian crises in Somalia, Rwanda, Tibet, etc. Some might say it is not our responsibility, but if you want a war to free Iraq there are better ways, see reason 15.
- We will not bring democracy to Iraq:
We have never wanted democracy in Iraq because the most populous group is Shiites, a southern group likely to align with Iran. The “federation” the white house proposes would be difficult in the best of circumstances. It will likely end when we leave, reference 12.
- Preparing for this war is taking resources away from the war on terror:
Republicans have complained that special forces have been reassigned from anti-terrorist to Iraq duties, reference 7 below. This is probably just the tip of an iceberg.
- Bush has not prepared for this war in a sensible way:
Why he refuses to learn from his father is beyond me, get the most support from the largest number of countries and form the largest coalition you can. Instead, we first get a public debate among members of the administration. Then he practically tells the world we really don’t care if they help or not. He goes to Congress just before an election, then tries to form a coalition; instead of the other way around. First inspections have been a failure, now we will give inspections another chance. He even pretends disarmament is the same as regime change.
- The war will not be like Desert Storm:
In Desert Storm, Saddam’s troops fought in the open desert. All indications are he is not going to make that mistake again, reference 9. Baghdad, with its suburbs, is 9 million people. The urban combat is going to involve high casualties on all sides, reference 10.
- Iraq is not like Afghanistan:
We will not have the support of large revolutionary forces on the ground, the urban combat will be nothing like Afghanistan, and we will not be welcomed the way we were there. The people of Iraq blame the UN sanctions on us, not Saddam. As a journalist who recently traveled in Iraq says, “They hate Saddam, but they hate us more” (reference 8). These sanctions have caused real hardship and many Iraqis believe the propaganda that children have died for lack of medicine etc. Few Iraqis believe we are doing this for them. They think we are after their oil. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t true. They believe it, and Saddam is now forming civilian “martyrs brigades” who will likely fight. Many Iraqi civilians have rifles at home. We may find that our troops will have to deal with sniper fire even after the “war is won”.
- Iraq is not like Japan or Germany of 1945:
Japan and Germany were conquered, demoralized nations in 1945, ready for change. An attempt had been made on Hitler’s life. Nothing like that has happened in Iraq. Iraq has not yet been conquered and the people of Iraq are more angry than demoralized.
- Iraq is like Germany after world war one:
Humiliated by defeat and forced to disarm, if an unworkable democracy is imposed the analogy will be complete. Of course, an analogy the Arabs use is Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, and we know how well that’s gone.
- There are other ways to punish Saddam for non-compliance:
Such as bombing or my personal favorite, take pieces of his country away from him until he complies.
- If you want war, and I do, there is a better way:
I want war for purely humanitarian reasons, but not this war. In my version we would slow down and take the time to help the Kurds, Shiites, and interested Sunnis develop large revolutionary armies. We would restart the middle east peace process. We would get as much international help as possible. We would consider splitting the country into thirds, a Kurdistan in the north, a country for the Shiites in the south. I know there are problems with this, but if your going to dream, why not? But it is just a dream, with Bush it’s his war or no war. I prefer no, to his war.
- This administration has some explaining to do:
What could be worse than a president or his aides demanding the “information” they want so they can justify a war. Yet a number of articles have come out indicating this is taking place, references 1, 2, and 3. Even Bush’s honesty is being questioned. His war speech was full of holes, reference 4, and our national media is beginning to wonder, references 5, 6, and 15.
References:
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/la-na-cia11oct11.story
-
White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' | World news | The Guardian
-
http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/thenote_oct22.html
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61903-2002Oct21.html
-
Bush aiming at wrong target, US critics fear | World news | The Guardian
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/international/middleeast/10MILI.html?pagewanted=1
-
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20020925.htm
**11. Have no doubt: terrorist leader is very much alive and more dangerous than ever | World news | The Guardian -
http://www.namibian.com.na/2002/October/world/028BB5FE71.html
FYI - AFAIK You can’t edit your posts. It’s not fair to the people who answer your posts. You could change your OP and make them look silly…er sillier:)
Well, I’d mark it as edited, and that way new readers would get a “better” version, but whatever works. Thanks for the reply.
The UN General Assembly disagrees with you. The actions of Saddam agains the Ma’dan are acts of genocide within the definition provided by Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.
Further, as I noted above, the EU also disagrees with you.
It doesn’t give us an excuse to not do what is possible to prevent civilian casualties. However, the potential for civilian casualties does not absolve us of our moral obligation to prevent and punish genocide, nor our affirmative obligation under the Convention to “undertake to prevent and to punish” genocide.
Sua
“I don’t care. To consider the question gives those who wish to commit genocide a shield under which to commit their genocide”
Well I just don’t believe that “genocide” is some kind of magic word that closes further discussion of how many people are actually being killed and whether saving them means killing even more people. Not least because different people have different standards for what a “genocide” is. If Saddam is killing a few hundred people I don’t see the “morality” of a war which will likely kill thousands of innocents at least.
“I really don’t mean this to be offensive, but I think your attitude represents a demeaning of our collective humanity”
Oh come on. “Pragmatic” considerations include factors which will lead to even more civilians being killed apart from the direct results of war. Possibilities like civil war in Iraq, regional war, the strengthening of terrorists groups etc. It would be immoral to ignore these.
It all gets down to how many people are being killed in this “genocide”.