I think this has been debated here before but I think some recent news might add a new angle.
From a recent CNN article :
“So far, the monitors have not revealed any evidence that Iraq is developing a clandestine nuclear or biological weapons program.
…
(Kofi Annan is quoted)[The inspectors] are able to do their work in an unimpeded manner. And therefore, I don’t see an argument for military action now.”
So the inspections are apparently going smoothly and Iraq is not resisting and we don’t have any real evidence yet.
Well, the official US line appears to be that that Iraq is already in “material breach” of various UN resolutions, based on the weapons declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December; this would tend to make any future findings by the inspectors irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I don’t think an invasion will necessarily take place “no matter what the result”. A complete failure of the inspectors to find any evidence of onging weapons programs would bolster the case against US action. Personally, I’m hoping that increased public clamor in the US for hard evidence that Iraq continues to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, and failure of the administration to make public such proof, could still put an end to this adventure.
As for the military buildup, once it has begun, it takes on a life of its own, due simply to logistics. Basically, the gear is already on the move, and even if the decision were made today to stand down, it would take weeks to return to a pre-crisis state. Still, I find it extremely unlikely that the US would launch full-scale military action while the inspectors remain in Iraq. OTOH, if the UN pulls the inspectors prior to 27 January, citing “security concerns”, all bets are off.
You could argue that the continued military build-up is due to the Bush administration’s determination to attack no matter what, but I don’t think so. A continued military build-up is simply the most logical way to go about it. For one thing, it tells Saddam he’s not out of the woods yet. He hasn’t exactly convinced us that he’s ready to play nice yet, from his inability to say that he would abide by the UNSC resolution (he simply said he would “deal with it”, which is as non-commital as it gets), to his 12,000 page document dump which is apparently full of holes. Withdrawing our military at this point would send a message that we’re satisfied with his behavior, and we’re clearly not.
Further, launching a war isn’t something that takes a weekend. It takes some time to get everything into place. As such, it’s good sense to get things set now, so that if we do decide to invade, we’re all set to go.
And lastly, a war at this point is still more likely than not. Saddam is still playing games. We have rumors that he’s simply moved all of his equipment into civilin homes to hide them, which makes inspections much more difficult. He hasn’t provided adequate evidence that the weapons he once had have been destroyed. He’s the same old Saddam. Since we believe we’re going to war, we may as well get ready for it.
Jeff
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
You could argue that the continued military build-up is due to the Bush administration’s determination to attack no matter what, but I don’t think so. A continued military build-up is simply the most logical way to go about it. For one thing, it tells Saddam he’s not out of the woods yet.
[QUOTE]
We already have had for some time a very significant military force there. The only threat that’s being made by this build-up seems a unilateral threat. Why get all of our troops ready to go within a few days of the deadline, when apparently an international effort would take much more time, unless of course they were planning unilateral action.
That says to me, the results of the inspections are meaningless. If the inspections turned up evidence, we would probably have international support and it would be wiser to take advantage of it if we could. Note also that the Bush admin already lobbied for unilateral action from Congress.
After Afghanistan, I don’t think this administration is just threatening, they’re methodically planning a war. Results be damned.
AFAIK the Bush admin hasn’t told anyone what those holes are. It seems to me they would tell everyone as soon as they knew what they were, if they had enough info to warrant military action.
Withdrawing isn’t the only option, we could also maintain our current levels.
As I just mentioned, why threaten unilateral action unless the inspections aren’t going to turn anything up?
So first you say the military buildup is to threaten him into coercion and then you say we’re just going to war anyway. So which is it?
If the lack of evidence from the inspections won’t stop a war, why are we doing them?
Argghh. I really should preview more. Apologies to all.
This was what I wrote sandwiched between two ElJeffe quotes in my last post:
We already have had for some time a very significant military force there. The only threat that’s being made by this build-up seems a unilateral threat. Why get all of our troops ready to go within a few days of the deadline, when apparently an international effort would take much more time, unless of course they were planning unilateral action.
That says to me, the results of the inspections are meaningless. If the inspections turned up evidence, we would probably have international support and it would be wiser to take advantage of it if we could. Note also that the Bush admin already lobbied for unilateral action from Congress.
After Afghanistan, I don’t think this administration is just threatening, they’re methodically planning a war. Results be damned.
Ah, bitten in the bum by the format bug. I hate that.
[/QUOTE]
We already have had for some time a very significant military force there. The only threat that’s being made by this build-up seems a unilateral threat. Why get all of our troops ready to go within a few days of the deadline, when apparently an international effort would take much more time, unless of course they were planning unilateral action.
[/QUOTE]
The unilateral build-up of forces doesn’t necessarily imply that we’re determined to fight this war unilaterally. Even if every other country in the world were on board, the vast majority of the forces would still be American, because we are, like it or not, the world’s police force. When there’s military work to do, we’re usually the ones to go in and do it. We certainly get some much appreciated help from our allies, but we still tend to dominate the military presence in terms of sheer numbers. That being said, should the US decide that war is necessary, I don’t think we’re going to spend too much time begging for the blessings of the UN. If they balk, I think we would still go in.
This is simply a matter of opinion, but based on the UN’s previous attitude towards Iraq, I think that no matter how much evidence we turn up, the UN would still hesitate to use force. They could probably talked into it if it was found that, say, Saddam was going to have a functioning nuke within 6 months, but if evidence was merely found that he was hard at work trying to build one, with no specific date of completion, I think they would still try diplomacy.
And as far as Bush’s lobbying for permission to use unilateral force, I think that was an attempt to expand his options. It showed that he’s serious about getting Saddam to comply, and that he was willing to do whatever. It also helped get those on board who were willing to grant Bush permission based on the premise that the occasion would never arise. In that sense, his early seeking of permission was a political calculation. Plus, it sped things along. If we decide to attack, that’s one less thing we need to do.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t quite follow you here. Are you saying that there was no evidence that Afghanistan was linked to al Qaeda, and we attacked anyway, in the same way you feel that we will be attacking Iraq without any evidence of WMDs? Please clarify.
If I were Bush, I would wait until I had decided myself that war was the only option, and only then would I present my case. Giving all your reasons at once makes a more convincing case than leaking them out over a long period, as the public has a short attention span.
True, but I think that maintaining our current line of action presents a stronger message than ceasing our build up, even if we keep current forces in place.
Because I would wager that Saddam has the same opinion of the UN as I do - that they’re all talk, and will be very reluctant to attack under any circumstances. The threat of unilateral action tells Saddam that he’s not dealing with the UN, he’s dealing with the US, and we don’t screw around. Are you more likely to respond to the cop who’s asked you 15 times to please drop the gun, or the one who tells you he doesn’t care about what the police force says, he’s going to blow your freakin’ head off if you don’t comply?
No, I said war is more likely than not. As in, it’s not an uncertainty, but if I were a betting man, I know where I’d place my money (in fact I have - I have a pool going on the date on which Saddam is deposed, and my money is on April 1st. ). If we suspect that war is likely, it makes sense to plan as if it were inevitable. We can always back off.
If we currently have evidence, it may not be necessary to provide new evidence from the current batch of inspections. It could be that we handed Saddam enough rope to hang himself, knowing that he would never comply with inspections. In such a case, the inspections would be a final chance for us to say to the UN, “Hey, look, we tried.”
Jeff
The only way the U.S. is not going in is if there is a coup that topples Saddam. It’s not so much the continuing military buildup that proves that, as our decision to go ahead and declare Iraq in material breach of the UN resolutions, without even referring to the inspectors’ opinions.
The US govt is probably hoping that the inspectors will turn up something, and that this will help garner us international support, but I believe we’re going to topple Saddam no matter what the inspectors find. So in that sense, yes, the inspectors are irrelevant.
Yes and no. If the US moves unilateraly, we’re acting as our own “police force” and enforcing our own rules on the rest of the world. Yes we have made up the bulk of military enforcement on many UN missions, but it’s important to have other countries involved in the long run. Even Bush’s dad understood this, and he had a much more obvious and pressing issues in the Gulf War.
Well I would expect a little hesitation from a body expected to promote peace. You can’t just go around sanctioning “pre-emptive” wars all over the place. It would be a dangerous precedent, one that would have to be backed by very clear and uncomplicated evidence.
The UN pulled out of Iraq for good reasons. Nobody (even Bush)was ready to topple Saddam in a potential guerilla war and ensure a stable government in Iraq. Now the reasoning for toppling Saddam is even less clear then it was in the Gulf War.
I think it’s clear that Iraq has previously breached UN resolutions, but obviously no one considered it serious enough to think it warranted going to war again. This current talk of war is only justified with evidence of Nuclear weapons or something else of that importance.
I guess that was pretty vague. The administration has just shown ample willingness to use force and use it quickly. So far it’s “diplomacy” seems to consist of threats and overwhelming force.
The thing is it’s been so long without any, the world is beginning to wonder if there is any. Especially since the inspections haven’t produced diddly.
Why are we worried about showing force when apparently we’re getting full cooperation? OK, so we heard some rumours that he was hiding stuff in private residences. But how is a military buildup going to help matters? What further cooperation do we need?
The UN seems to think Saddam is complying already, what are these threats supposed to accomplish? What concrete results could we see?
Movement of troops halfway across the world is more than a plan, it’s action.
If we have evidence, then we’d get help from the UN, or at least some modicum of respectability, a lot quicker by presenting it. Putting inspectors in who haven’t complained about access, and who don’t find anything just weakens the Bush administration’s case.
The thing to remember is, the demand isn’t that Saddam just allow inspectors to enter the country and root around aimlessly. The inspectors are supposed to be there in order to verify that Saddam has dismantled known weapons and destroyed them. This presupposes cooperation on Saddam’s part. Because inspectors have no hope of finding hidden weapons in a country the size of Iraq - especially smaller nuclear biological weapons and programs - without some guidance.
The analogy is this: You’re a cop, and you see a guy run into a building carrying a machine gun. You see him through the curtain, and you can see the shadow of the machine gun. An agent looks through the window and sees machine gun bullets. Okay, he’s got a machine gun, and he has to give it up.
So you talk to the guy and say, “destroy that machine gun, and then let us come in and inspect the place to verify that it has been destroyed.”
The response you get it, “What machine gun? I don’t know what you’re talking about. But okay, come in and look around”. Except that the house is so damned big that you can’t look everywhere, and since he’s allowing you in, you can assume he’s hidden it in a pretty good place.
But since you know that he’s got it, and he’s still denying having it, you know he’s playing games with you.
Hell, even France thought it was a joke. And we all know how easy it is to fool France. I think it surrendered once to the Kiss Army.
Saddam gives us a declaration, pointing out where the WMD are, where the facilities to build them are, where the old facilities that have been de-activated are, etc.
After the worldwide community is satisfied that the declaration is complete and comprehensive, Saddam then destroys all WMD, then the inspectors go through all the sites on the list and verify that they have in fact been destroyed. Plus, they make some surprise inspections elsewhere to keep Saddam on his toes.
What really happened was:
Saddam said, “Iraq doesn’t have any weapons of mass destruction”, and his ‘declaration’ is 10,000 pages of irrelevancies, old documents, and obvious filler. It is clearly not a good-faith attempt.
He says, “Sure, the inspectors can look around. Here you go - inspect Iraq. But since we don’t have any WMD, I have nothing to offer you to guide your inspection. Search away.”
Now, we KNOW Saddam is lying. His declaration didn’t even include the WMD we literally saw after the Gulf war. If he destroyed them, we wanted records. Instead, he says they never existed. NO ONE is fooled by this, except for maybe a few liberals on the SDMB. As I said, even France has said the declaration was ‘disappointing’, and the U.N. has said the same thing. Saddam is playing games, and everyone knows it.
First of all, let’s not confuse the declaration with the inspections.
Hans Blix said it was incomplete and wasn’t happy about it. But he didn’t say,“He’s got them and we know it”, he said that he can’t verify Iraq doesn’t have them.
Sure it would have been easy if they had said “the chemical weapons are right here”, but it seems unrealistic to me to expect an admission like that. I think Bush realizes the number of troops sent will not make something like that appear. I think he also realizes that the inspections probably arent’ going to turn anything up. Therefore I believe he is preparing for a unilateral war without sanction from the UN.
The fact remains that even after the US shared it’s supposed proof with the UN inspectors, they still haven’t been able to come up with something. Iraq gave them access to try to confirm their suspicions, it seems to me the best we could hope for.
It may be that the UN resolutions put the burden of proof on Iraq, but when thousands of lives are at stake in a proposed “pre-emptive” war, that point becomes irrelevant to me. Before you kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people, the burden of proof is on you. This becomes especially important if the US acts unilaterally and without sanction from the UN.
If Saddam does have weapons of mass destruction then certainly he will use them if someone tries to remove him by military force. A war in the name of removing them will only gaurantee that they will be used. And then of course, his soldiers will eventually likely be closer to civilian areas than in the Gulf War meaning much higher civilian casualties.
Bush has set this up as “Prove you don’t have WMD”. Since it impossible to prove a negative, the best that dubya can hope for is to get an inspector to say 'Aha!".
Even if the inspections turn up nothing, bushie can still say “I know they’re in there!” and attack.
p.s. - did he really hypothesize on what would happen if IRAQ attacked the US?! How deliciously cynical! Almost as good a giving Kissinger the Nobel Peace prize!
How do we know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? Simple. We, and the whole world, saw him use them, first against Iran, and then, after the Gulf War, against the Kurds. Mustard gas was the principal such weapon, although I think VX and other nerve agents were also used.
According to the U.S., the declaration doesn’t account for all the chemical weapons he used in the war with Iran against the Kurds. I haven’t read so much as a single one of the many thousands of pages in the declaration, of course. But I’ve yet to hear anybody, in or out of the U.S. (except for Iraq itself, of course), claim that the declaration does account for the destruction and/or expenditure of the entire chemical arsenal that Saddam Hussein previously possessed and used. The Bush administration is not the only one saying that the declaration’s inaccurate.
Satellite photos. Aerial photos. Reports from the doctors who treated those wounded by chemical weapons. Reports from the survivors themselves. And, I should suppose, decoded signals intel and agents in place as well, though for obvious reasons the U.S. won’t be advertising its capabilities in those two areas.
If it were only the U.S. claiming that the declaration doesn’t account for Saddam’s known former chemical weapons capability, one might reasonably suppose the U.S. to be lying. But if France, a known opponent of invading Iraq, also concludes that the declaration doesn’t account for all of Saddam’s known former chemical weapons capability, might it not be reasonable to suppose that Mr. Hussein is lying, instead?
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How on earth does the US know how many chemical weapons Iraq used? Sounds quite ludicrous to me.
If we can locate chemical weapons by plane and satellite, why can’ t inspectors with the help of this information find them on the ground?
Sure, many have criticized Iraq’s declaration, but for whatever reason the inspections are now meaningless. Regardless of the results, the US seems aimed at war.
Not to say the Bush admin couldn’t change it’s mind. I’m sure opinion polls and the economy will play a role, but the inspections will be meaningless.
My understanding is that we know they have them because we personally inspected them after the war, and we were never presented with evidence that they were destroyed. It was not part of the declaration. In fact, the extant inventories weren’t mentioned at all. Saddam basically said, “I don’t know what you’re talking about. There were no weapons.”
So basically, Iraq’s declaration does not match the reports made by U.N. arms inspectors before they left the country in 1998. In addition, things like those Aluminum tubes that we know he bought don’t show up on the declaration at all.
It’s not just the U.S. saying this. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the declaration was ‘an obvious falsehood’.
Britain isn’t just repeating the U.S. line, either. For instance, they disagree that this constitutes a material breach, because the second part of the resolution (failure to allow inspections) has not been violated. But that’s another issue.
And if you think it’s just the U.S. and its British lapdog saying this, here’s what the U.N. had to say:
What I find interesting about this statement is that Blix is implying that without guidance from Iraqis, the inspections themselves may not be credible.
I find it quite fascinating that the UN seems willing to admit that Iraq’s declaration was a joke, and that inspections without the aid of a credible declaration statement are futile at best, yet still seems adamant about persisting with the charade. “But Saddam is cooperating with the inspectors!” Of course he is! He knows full well that they couldn’t hope to find anything with a fleet of a thousand inspectors working 24/7. Iraq is too damn big. Sam Stone’s analogy was spot on. When your enemy is only too happy to cooperate, you should always be wary.
Jeff
