After 12 years, wait another 6 months for the sake of international law?

Great Debates
1

The answer to “why rush?” is given as “summer’s coming, and our tanks don’t work then” or some such strategic limitation.
The British attorney general has advised Blair that without a second (well, an 18th) resolution authorising “all necessary means” (as opposed to mere “serious consequences a la 1441), the war with Iraq would contravene international law.

Blair has already stuck his neck way out for Bush in the face of opposition from within his own party (to say nothing of the biggest demonstration against anything in Britain ever), but for him to involve British troops in an illegal war would probably cost him his job.

So, the US would be invading Iraq:

  1. unilaterally,

  2. against the express wishes of the UN,

  3. via a non-preferred strategy omitting Turkey

  4. without any legal mandate to do so
    4a. even without clear evidence of a “material breach” on the part of Iraq (empty warheads and missiles with a range slightly too long are not “clear” IMHO),

  5. all at a time when it is unclear whether America can even afford a war in its current economic situation.

So, howabout?…

We wait until autumn.

The inspectors find clear evidence of a material breach.

The UNSC authorises “all necessary means”.

The Labour cabinet supports Blair.

Turkey is persuaded to allow access to its border and bases.

The Iraqi underground/opposition have more time to attempt a bloodless coup.

The US can more effectively assess the economic consequences of a war.

No important new precedent has been set regarding US military action and “regime change”.

Our tanks work again.
Reasons why not:
Keeping the troops there will be expensive - Not much more expensive than in training elsewhere, surely? In any case, the war itself is costing a fortune anyway n’est pas? What price the above advantages?

We need a victory soon. Who does, exactly? Drop the ‘e’ in ‘We’ and I believe the real reason for all this hurry becomes apparent.

2

De facto, yes, but with the express support of a couple dozen nations.

Never gonna happen. Anything short of a working nuclear bomb won’t be enough for the UN; even that wouldn’t sell the French, I warrant.

On what basis now, after 20+ years of inability?

What’s to assess? Either you do it or you don’t. It will cost a lot now, it’ll cost a lot then. Moreover, it’s 6 more months of uncertainty in the markets.

Massively so. I’ll let someone else give the details.

3

I see no sign that waiting 6 months will increase support for the war in Britain or elsewhere. Just the reverse, in fact. I see a growing anti-war and anti-America movement

Waiting gives Saddam more time to plan ways to do damage. Reportedly he has already planted bombs in many of Iraq’s oil wells. Recall that he started oil well fires in 1991. These fires took huge resources from the world and caused great environmental damage.

Waiting increases the risk that Saddam might develop or acquire nuclear weapons.

Waiting hampers giving full attention to the urgent problems in North Korea and Iran – countries that appear to be rapidly developing nuclear arsenals.

Waiting hampers giving proper attention to the Israel-Palestininian conflict.

4

No, you are dead wrong about this. Keeping troops in the field is not a matter of expense (though it is much more expensive than training), its also a matter of keeping them on high combat readiness. You cannot maintain that for 6 months.

5

  1. Unilateral. Spain, Bulgaria, Italy, Australia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, just to name the ones off the top of my head. I do not care what you currently are implying as unilateral in your way of thinking. The fact is that this is a false assertion in your rhetoric. Find a new line please.

  2. So was Kosovo, Korea (in the beginning), Bosnia, and Rwanda. (Oh wait, the last was a human catastrophe because the Holy UN did not wish it.)

  3. Every war is fought with an unpreferred strategy. You know, where the enemy shoots themselves while you sit at home until they are done. But that not be preferred because you may have the phone tied up when they try to call to surrender.

  4. If you keep calling it an illegal war, it may make it so. Especially if you click the heels of your ruby slippers. The UN lawyers can’t even agree on the legalities of a war without a new resolution. So I am not about to take the word of a name on the internet. Many many people would point to the all of the UN resolutions back to the first war and the war itself as a legal mandate.

4a. Clear evidence of a material breech is the lack of evidence of full cooperation and disclosure from Iraq. Period. That is not even up for debate. So move along, there is nothing to see here.

Your bias is blinding you to everything but what W. wants. And that is insulting. First of all, The US and UK are the ones sacrificing their men and women (even today) so that the UN would be more than the farce it is. In the Mideast in particular, American and British pilots risk being blown out of the sky so that Saddam can show his defiance in the face of your revered UN. 250 thousand American men and women are camping at that despots front door so that these inspectors can even get into the fucking country, much less do any facades at “inspecting”.

Men and women, who I might add 70% of are married and most of them have children. They have proven that they are willing to sacrifice for our nation, but when I see people like De Vallapin (sp?) demand they stay away from their families indefinitely so they can have power games with the administration it makes me furious. Who the fuck is France, and the rest of the world for that matter, to say that about American troops. The same troops that give any serious context to the UN. That sacrifice that is fucking demanded is not done so by the people those troops are there to obey and protect. They are not sacrificing for the will of the American people. They are expected to sacrifice for the ungrateful … unworthy … unreturned diatribes of the nations who do not have the balls to see to the end the tasks they have made for themselves.

While you want more time… the conditions in Iraq by “sanctions”, poor conditions, and brutal policies, are killing thousands of civilians a day. Need I remind you that the entire gulf war fighting killed about a days worth of that regimes policies?

But some people can ignore that. Just like you like to claim the second resolution and only giving lip service to the sixteen other resolutions that the US and her allies have mainly enforced over that past decade.

SentientMeat, I have nothing against you. And this tirade is not directed towards you at all. I am just fed the fuck up with the drivel about the American Cowboys and their unjust, unreasonable war and ways.

You want more time? You go tell the Iraqi mother who has already lost 9 of her 12 children to malnutrition that the other 3 may day in the next 6 months while the UN pathetics get their shit together. Sure we are there, and some of us are willing, to at least try to save them.

It is not like this war will ever be averted. Saddam will never give up his desires of WMD or at least to thwart the UN and the west. All we are doing is postponing the inevitable. And that postponing itself could be putting in danger millions of more lives for many reason that has been described over that past six months and strategically.

That is not why I support war right now. But it is the main reason I do not support waiting. I think waiting is irresponsible once you consider yourself prepared to do what you know has to be done.

6

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? Bush decided Iraq had to be this year, not next. Meanwhile, it turns out that both North Korea and Iran are higher on the WMD threat list, since they both are at most months away from being nuclear-capable.

To deploy our troops in the manner we did, that all but commits us to go to war now, and commits us to a foreign occupation that will be a major drain on our military resources, was stupid. There was nothing about Iraq that couldn’t have waited a year - a year to make it at least look like we were giving inspections what our allies would regard as a genuine final chance, a year to build up the sort of international support that would be helpful in getting other countries to help carry the military burden of the postwar occupation, a year to not have to tell Turkey, “sure, you’ve got democracy, and we respect that - but we want a vote NOW and it’d better come out the way we want.” (Didn’t we just tell the Palestinians the same thing last year? If it happens again, it’ll start to look like a habit.)

Not every international goal of the U.S.A. will be the sort that can be accomplished by military muscle. There will be times when we need the help of other countries in accomplishing our objectives. We’d better hope our friends have short memories and forgiving dispositions.

Saen, we are not going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons. There are many countries in the world where the ruling powers are treating their people most cruelly. Neither the Bush Administration, nor the GOP in general, has much interest in these places. In fact, they ridiculed Clinton because he thought such countries were worth helping out.

If we want to rescue a country from its leaders, let’s try Burma. As Parade, of all periodicals, reminded us just three days ago, it’s got a popularly elected leader who’s ready to take over, if we were to depose the ruling junta that is making life hell for the Burmese. No long and dangerous postwar occupation required. In, out, and done; on to the next problem.

7

Saen, thank you for your considered and thoughtful response.

I used the word “unilateral” because maybe not even Britain will be joining the US this time. It will solely be the US, unlike the other wars you mention.

Some nations support a war. Equally importantly, some oppose one. The current UNSC requires 9 votes (and no veto) to legitimise war via the adoption of a resolution including the words “all necessary means”.None of the said countries will support the war without one. It is surely the illegitimacy of the war which is at the heart of anti-war and anti-American feeling?

I would be extremely grateful if someone could estimate the financial cost of delaying the invasion. Considering the multi-billion sums currently being bandied around as bribes for Turkey/Angola/Bulgaria and the multi-trillion worst case scenario war bills, this surely cannot be worth the international condemnation and damage to the UN and allies like Blair following an illegal war?

december makes some fine points but, with respect, few of them are particularly convincing. Why should Saddam not already have mined the wells? How is he to produce WMD with his leading scientists abroad and thousands of UN inspectors running around for six months? And as much as I share his concern with Korea, Iran and Palestine, these are surely diplomatic problems to be solved by politicians, not soldiers (and even if soldiers are needed, they’re already close to two of the three merely by being in the Gulf). Diplomatic efforts on all fronts can take place simultaneously - which one gets more news space is irrelevant.

bandit’s post also shows great insight, although I would have thought a simple command of “stand down for 6 months” would be sufficient.

Please, I assure you I am as unbiased as I feel I can be, and I support a war with Iraq on humanitarian grounds (Sudan and Burma next, agreed?). However, I also believe that international law and the UN form the fundamental basis of how states deal with each other and do not wish to be part of a movement or action which dismantles their entire foundation.

8

I am not trying for a theological debate on extremes of human suffering, or the preferences on who why what and when of this upcomming war.

The reality is that in spite of any fantasied or true nefarious reasons of the administration to want to take out Saddam, the most powerful nation in the world is willing and demonstrably ready to do this deed.

Are you telling that mother that Burma’s people are reported t suffer more so any attempt to liberate her and hers at this time is illogical and unsupported by you? Do you withdraw your saving hand from the drownin person at your feet to rush to the burning building to see if there are lives you can save there?

I cannot follow the logic that you cannot attempt to liberate someone unless you liberate everyone. Surely, theoretically it may be hypocritical and inconsistant. But that does not help either.

9

I don’t think you can talk about this war without talking about such things. Iraq isn’t in a vacuum; it’s part of the world.

And that’s what a good chunk of the debate’s about: why this deed, rather than some other? And why must it absitively posilutely be now, rather than next year - other than that (to steal my namesake’s line) we’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield?

Until we can save everybody, everywhere, who needs and deserves saving - until that day comes, I contend we have to make choices on how to use our extensive but still finite resources on the world stage.

That’s just emotional frippery. Who’s the ‘drowning person at my feet’ and who’s not?

Come to think of it, that person would surely be here in America anyway. So both the Iraqi and the Burmese would lose out.

I cannot follow that logic either, which is why I’m not advocating it. In fact, I’m saying the opposite: that one has to make choices of how best to use one’s resources in the world.

Bush has tried to get us away from this, by (successfully, by and large) turning the debate into “Iraq: attack or not?” in a vacuum. But the rest of the world, with all of its threats and all of its injustices, is out there still.

I fully agree that Saddam is a nasty sort who the world would be better off without. But he’s not the only one on my list, nor should he be: there are loads of people around who are as nasty as him, and there are a few who are even more of a danger to their regions or the world at large.

And this won’t just be a two-week war, then outta there: we’ll have to leave behind a pretty substantial occupation force, and that will limit what we can do in the rest of the world while the occupation continues. Should that be factored into our choices? You betcha it should.

10

Yes it is. And you know what else it is? It is our specific target, not the rest of the world, nor is world suffering our target. Iraqi suffering and world suffering is not synonymous, as you seem to be trying to infer. It is what we have on our plate right now. Something that we can manage, and something we have to deal with. how can I say that with such assurance,? Because the people we put in charge of this exact thing says so. And the nay-sayers have not come up with anything substantive to resonably put thier assertions in doubt.

see above.

Well, we agree on something. So why cannot we not deal with Iraq when we decide to do so?

The mother is of course, the one you say we should not help because of some article about Burma has peeked your interest.

Are you saying that the debate on going to war with Iraq is not “Iraq: attack or not?” But it is the world, with all of its threats and all of its injustices, is out there still?

I need clarification because you seem to be contrdicting yourself. Do we deal with what we can with the resources we have? Or do we deal with nothing because “the rest of the world” is still out there?

And it gets wet outside when it rains. Are you honestly contendting that bush’s military advisors and the professionals in our armed forces somewhow forgot to factor in that little gem?

11

Other problems that may or may not occur.

Iraq is a nation whose borders do not reflect the geographic distributions of the major groups, the Kurd, the Sunnis, and the Shias.
They are living in lands whose borders are arbitary and which were not self-determined.

The Kurds occupy areas that include Iraq and Turkey, the Sunnis in Soutern Irad and Saudi Arabia, the SHias in the Tigrs region and parts of Iran.

Once the rulling Baath party is kicked out there will be many scores to settle, the otheer two factions will certainly want at the very least, a share of power, which will lead to internal strife, but much worse is the possibility of civil wars.

The problems in civil war is that each ethnic group has support in the countires bordering their areas, and this is likely to draw support from them.

Sympathisers in Saudi Arabia, for example could fund their brothers and may well cause the Saudi authorities serious internal difficulties, the worst case scenario is that the Saudi government could be toppled, their replacements turn off the worlds oil supply in order to force US military to leave its bases there, and I doubt that the US could countenance such an occurance. You could go much further down thsi raod where US troops are used directly to maintain the current Saudi regime in power.

The Kurds almost certainly are chasing their own homeland, and this will lead to cross border problems for Turkey as Kurds there try to gain more autonomy for Turkish Kurd regions.

The Shias, well anything could happen here, we could see a wave of fundamentalism, a religious revolution who knows ?

In the middle of all this are US/UK troops.

If Hussain has WOMD then there must be a serious risk of them being used, and if no such can be found after invasion, then this call the whole thing into question and will reinforce the belief in the minds of very many, the US is merely excercising is power to assert its hegemony over the region, which will attract the attentions of every fundamentalist rabble rouser in the mid-East, not a delightful prospect.

Meanwhile, of course, the original UN mandate, 1441 ? was originally proposed to allow for war by direct use of the W word, but this would not have got through the UNSC thus the wording was watered down to ‘serious consequencies’
France/Russia was instrumental in getting that wording om tje resolution, and it seems pretty clear that this was not intended by them to be used as an authorisation to go to war without further UN consultation.
There are mother courses of action that fall short of war that can fit the description of serious consequencies.

So looking at the risks it seems to me that we can get in there all too easily, but that we risk completely undermining the UN, we could very easily destabilise the entire mid East, Jordan looks very shaky, and the threat of terriorism will probably have increased, and the US will lose much goodwill and sympathy in the wake of 9/11.

All for a country that cannot directly threaten the US or UK.

It will be interseting to see what happens to the financial markets too, the UK FTSE has just hit an umpteen year low, if we get stuck in a mire this will hit those markets harder still, jobs will be lost, and recession could concievably turn into depression.

OTOH, we could wait and get another resolution passed, when Hussain fails to meet its conditions we then get authorisation from the UN for war, which then gains authority and is able to exert that power far better in other regions.

There is a risk too that after all this, once the US/UK invades Iraq, that when it comes to the GATT talks the G7 summits and the like, that trading nations will tend to divide along the lines of UNSC, world leader will get in a huff and start raising trade barriers, which will not be good for anyones economy.

We are risking an awful lot for the sake of a few months of inspections.

12

The longer we push this off, the greater the chance that this gets foisted off on whoever happens to be in office in 2004. If it’s Bush, there’s still a chance it’ll happen. If it’s a Democract, then there’s not a chance in hell. If it doesn’t happen soon, it’ll never happen.

BTW, as to that favored talking point of the anti-war folks regarding the threat of NK, I ask this: What do you suggest we do about NK that we can’t do while invading Iraq? The only thing I can think of that we couldn’t do is invade NK, and I know for a fact that’s not what you guys are advocating.
Jeff

13

You mean like Afghanistan? But yet…

It’s a no win situation with these people. If the US defers to the global community here, they say “What are you doing in Iraq with North Korea being the obvious threat!”. Then if we go in there and put pressure on North Korea, they say “See! Bush is a war mongering imperialist! He’s trying to assert US power on a country that hasn’t threatened it’s neighbors in over 40 years!”

14

Thunderbug

…but yet there has been no conclusive evidence that Afghanistan exported terrorism is linked to Iraq.

There is no proven direct link between Saddam Hussain and Al-Qaeda.
What 9/11 does prove is that no matter which nation you are, you can be damaged by a bunch of organised, committed terrorists and you do not need WOMD to do it, just a few carpet knives.

What is your point exactly ?

15

Do you have conclusive evidence that the official Afghanistan government exported terrorists to the US? Do you deny that Iraq caters to and harbors terrorist groups, just as the Taliban did? Are you suggesting that Al-Qaeda is the only terrorist group operating in the middle east that poses a threat to the US, her allies and her interests?

The terrorists of 9/11 improvised pretty darn well. They didn’t kill 3,000 people with carpet knives. I don’t want to know what would have happened if they were given actual WMD instead of 4 improvised ones.

16

Exactly! War is bad. We want to avoid it. Iraq has not acted aggresively against the United States and is not even capable of directly attacking the United States. Nothing bad will happen if we don’t go to war. Nobody else in the world beside around forty percent of Americans and some of Bush’s cabinet thinks that this war is a good idea.

I’m all for it just not happening. Thats the best plan I’ve heard yet.

17

You’re confusing “synonymous” with “comparable.” And of course they’re comparable.

You say that Iraq “is what we have on our plate right now.” Why do you say this is, again?

Well, if “they say so”, then it must be true.

So all you’re arguing is that we should go after Iraq because we’ve already paid a month’s rent on the battlefield.

Except that you apparently conclude my arguments can be dismissed because ‘Iraq is what’s on our plate right now.’ So there’s no way, in your apparent opinion, for this nay-sayer to make a case - it’s been settled by the Administration’s choice.

Can’t argue against that. To paraphrase the fundies, “Bush said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

We can, I haven’t claimed otherwise. But I’d argue it’s not the best choice.

Why is this - because Bush said so?

Oh, and that’s ‘piqued’, not ‘peeked’. But Parade didn’t pique my interest; that’s been there for some time. I was citing Parade to indicate that concern about Burma isn’t exactly limited to the so-called liberal intelligentsia.

But the reality is that, even if we’re completely out of Iraq by June, the suffering in Burma will continue, because Burma’s not on Bush & Co.'s radar screen. You know why it’s not? Because they don’t give a flip about human rights or human suffering, that’s why. In the case of Iraq, it’s a helpful argument for them to do what they want to do anyway, and that’s all it is.

We deal with what we can, with the resources we have. I don’t think I’ve contradicted myself on that.

We’ve got two hostile nations - North Korea and Iran - that are turning into nuclear powers right before our eyes. And the hostile nation we’re choosing to deal with now - Iraq - is apparently nowhere close to developing nukes.

Not to disparage other “weapons of mass destruction”, but nukes are a hell of a lot more serious than any chemical or biological agent known to mankind. I would argue that if we’re going to pre-emptively attack on the basis of threat, third-world nuclear proliferation is what should determine the priority rankings on our military to-do list.

I don’t know who’s factored in what. That discussion hasn’t taken place out in the open.

But if we’re calling up the reserves and the National Guard in droves for this war, as well as conscripting our former volunteers, and we have to leave a big force behind in Iraq after the battlefield win, doesn’t that pretty obviously constrain what sort of war we can fight in some other place later this year?

18

Right now, we know a great deal about both Iraq’s capabilities and what the US can do there, because the world has been having this long and impressively open discussion about the impending war in Iraq. Papers like USA Today have had pretty maps with circles and arrows, saying here’s what’ll probably happen when the war gets underway.

We don’t know the same about North Korea, because we haven’t had the same discussion about North Korea. Do we have options there? Surely we must. What are they? Dunno. Can we rain hot, fiery death down on whatever portion of the North Korean army survives the minefields on our side of the DMZ if they invade the South? That doesn’t seem implausible. So if we can do so, should we get ready to do that, while obliterating any trace of their nuclear program via some combination of airstrikes and commando raids?

Damned if I know. We’ve been told what they think we can do in Iraq, but not what we can do in Korea. We’re not even talking apples and oranges here; we’re talking apples and a mystery package.

Then there’s Iran, which could be nuclear-capable before the snows return. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has provisions for placing safeguards to ensure that non-nuclear signatories don’t become nuclear powers (see Article 3 in the text of the treaty). Why aren’t we going to the UN and demanding that this treaty be enforced stringently in Iran’s case, to prevent it from joining the nuclear ‘club’? Our ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear program via airstrikes appears certain. I’m puzzled over why we don’t demand the right to enforce their compliance with the treaty. That seems much more urgent than any threat from Iraq.

*Luxembourg is next to go
and who knows, maybe Monaco.
We’ll try to stay serene and calm
when Alabama gets the Bomb. *
–Tom Lehrer, “Who’s Next?”

19

Who is to say Iran isn’t it the grand plan. Seems to me we don’t need 300,000 troops to conquer Iraq. Hell, we basically conquered Afghanistan with 200 special forces troops (it wasn’t even close to the “dry vietnam” that some here predicted it would be). Seems to me Iran would pay a hell of a lot more attention to US demands for them to cease and desist their nuclear aspirations with over a quarter million of our troops on their border.

20

Yeah, if they’re willing to act both quickly and unilaterally. Once the military victory is won, forces not needed for the occupation will be headed home fairly quickly, so any other actions in the neighborhood have to be undertaken promptly. And there won’t be time to go through the whole U.N. bit, so it’ll have to be on our own, without even the attempt to garner UN approval. And I don’t see that happening.