Posed by REPUBLICAN congressman from TEXAS, Ron Paul:
He asked 35 important questions about going to war with Iraq. I haven’t heard much that makes sense in the way of answers.
I’m posting only some, because even though I very, very much doubt he would object to reprints, the SD staff are fussy that way: (Entire list here
Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda “is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses”?
Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world’s worst suspicions about the US, and isn’t this what bin Laden wanted?
How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?
If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
These questions encompass all the things I have been reading and hearing for weeks now. I welcome direct and specific answers to these questions if you think war with Iraq is a correct, justified and important thing to spend our time, resources, and American lives on.
Please.
(I’m most particularly interested in answers to the questions that reference the people who actually did attack us, and answers about after any such war. See the current issue ofThe Atlantic Monthly for more on that. )
Sort of true. Not only could they retaliate, they could do so in a world-destroying way.
Not true. Iraq can retaliate (Terrorism); But what is the wisdom in waiting until it can increase the effectiveness of its retaliation. (Neatly packaged WMD)
True, but I don’t see the point. My point is that not only are inspections not 100% effective (they do get some WMD I suppose), but in the absense of those largely useless inspections, there is no restriction on Iraqi WMD.
The intelligence community would give the Sun a 95% chance of rising tomorrow; They practice rear-covering report making. So no, they have not given us a ‘smoking gun’, but they do give all sorts of neat tidbits.
Not really. It seems that many have filtered from western Pakistan to parts unknown. Some to Iraq, some to Syria, etc.
Afghanistan now has fewer (reported) homicides then America, including the sore-loser gunmen and whatnot.
Different assets. One uses different intelligence capabilities depending on the prey. TR-1’s and satellites are not very usefull when tracking individuals, but are excellent when dealing with conventional military goals.
What is the ‘Arab World’ worried about this time?
Inept at defending his country? Uh, last time I checked, he is still the leader of Iraq…
I smell a soccer mom argument with this one. ‘Thousands of casualties’? On their side, sure. On our side? Extraordinarily unlikely. The last Gulf War was safer for our troops then life back on the base was; Did the Iraqi army all of a sudden become competent?
Yes. One WMD from Mssr.Hussien could very easily cost more (not to mention in American lives) then 100 billion.
Not at all. Why should America be part of something that does not suit us? And what country does?
Because it suits us.
No. America was involved on the Allied side in WW2 well before any declaration of war. Regardless, I fail to see why we shouldn’t take out a blatant threat before it strikes. Why wait until after?
I would ask the honorable congressmen for a cite on this one. Not to mention, I support a war with Iraq. Does that mean I am in it for the oil? No.
Several theories on this one. My personal favorite, and perhaps the topic of another thread, is that we are currently dealing with a Pentagon that has been stocked by Clinton for 8 years. More lap-dogs then warriors.
Since Iraq has initiated agression against us (assassination attempt against the Sr. Bush), I will take this question to be a general one. And like I said above, if the threat is evident, I believe we should act first, rather then pick through the rubble on our side, then act.
The congressman must have been hitting the pipe with M.Barry. The frigging treaty of Westphalia? Not exactly relevent in the 21st century, I say.
Yep. And they made a choice on Sept.12: Either continue to be a supporter of the Taliban and reject the US requests for basing rights, or be fucked on a grand scale. Since there is still an independent Pakistan, it is obvious they choose wisely.
No. The U.S. had the bomb for 8 years before the Soviets got it, and didn’t attack. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had overwhelming military superiority, and chose to go home and disarm. By the time the Korean war came along, the U.S. had barely enough troops for that one engagement.
It is true that the we are willing to attack Iraq NOW, because we believe they can’t retaliate with weapons of mass destruction NOW. That has nothing to with whether, left unchecked, there is a threat. The threat is what Saddam would have in a year or two, not what he has now. That’s the whole case for war.
I’m sure I won’t be the only one to point out the logical fallacy here. There’s a big difference between saying that we know weapons exist, and saying that inspections can find them all. We knew the Soviets had missiles - we didn’t know they had them in Cuba until a U2 spy plane happened to spot them there.
The fallacy here is in thinking that the U.S. is attacking Iraq because of Sept. 11. NO ONE has said that. As for tying Iraq to global terrorism, that’s a different question, and it’s a certainty. Hell, Iraq was harboring Abu Nidal, and Saddam is PROUD of the fact that he pays Palestinians to kill Israelis by blowing themselves up. Iraq has been linked to lots of terrorist attacks - but there is no firm evidence linking Iraq to the WTC attack. The second one, anyway. There’s much better evidence that Iraq was involved in the first WTC attack, and that would have been much more devastating had that truck been parked about 20 ft closer to a support column. The casualties would have been over 10,000.
Yes, but again, this is a straw man. No one has been making the case that this is about al-Qaida. But there are certainly plenty of al-Qaida in Iraq. And I just read a report saying that the U.S. believes one of the top-20 leaders of al-Qaida was in Baghdad as of a couple of months ago, although he is no longer there.
‘Total Chaos’ is a wild exaggeration. The Karzai government is in power, and appears to be holding on to power reasonably well. What you’re seeing is a resurgence of the militants that were quieted shortly after the invasion and dispersed back to their home villages. They are regrouping, and supposedly the U.S. is preparing for that.
The U.S has a military structured to be able to fight a ‘two-front’ war. That’s two fronts as in, two major engagements against major powers in a large-scale conflict. Do you have any evidence that it isn’t able to maintain the peace in Afghanistan, search for al-Qaida, and carry out a war in Iraq at the same time?
And by the way, the types of forces that are used in Iraq are largely made up of soldiers that are of little use in the war against terror anyway. We don’t send mechanized divisions against al-Qaida.
No. The Arab world shares no love of Saddam, and the U.S. already has the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, and Jordan. If the U.N. approves the use of force, the U.S. also has the support of Egypt and Iran. What will really matter is not the war itself, but how the U.S. treats Iraq afterwards.
And Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons. Saddam might. Hitler didn’t have biological weapons like aflatoxin. And Hitler didn’t exist in a world in which there were non-govermental organizations that could fly the globe at will. In short the Hitler comparison is stupid and meaningless.
Are YOU prepared for the hundreds of thousands of American CIVILIAN casualties that would occur if a nuclear weapon detonated in Manhattan?
IN any event, isn’t that question one that should be asked of the people who will be doing the actual fighting and dying? You do know that the war against Saddam is wildly popular amongst the rank-and-file in the military, right?
As opposed to the Trillion-dollar shock to the economy from the WTC attack? How much would a nuclear or biological attack on the U.S. cost? Tens of trillions?
As more than one person has said, international treaties are not a suicide pact. The chief responsibility of the president is to defend the country. Treaties are useful when they help that goal.
This is realpolitik. Musharref is only the best of a bad situation. What would you suggest the U.S. do in that case? It’s not like they were the ones who overthrew the government. Musharref did, and the U.S. had to live with it. The Bush administration did a brilliant job of ‘turning’ Pakistan into strong supporters of this war, considering that they were one of the biggest problems before the war. Musharref is also promising democratic elections. But even if he doesn’t, that’s just the way it goes.
NO. If someone pulls a gun on you, the threat of imminent violence is justification for a pre-emptive response. The courts have upheld this many times. I respect Ron Paul’s position on this, but I think it’s naive’.
Guilt through association. We all know that the only possible motivation an ‘oil company executive’ can have is greed, right? If a poll of comptuter executives showed that they overwhelmingly supported a war, would that be evidence of a conspiracy to set up computer factories in Iraq?
Another ad-hominem attack. Debate the issues, not the military history of the people who advocate it. But while we’re here, I think you’d better go back and see what the generals think. The MILD objections many of them had a few months ago were wildly overblown or even mischaracterized by the media. I saw Schwartzkopf interviewed the other day, and he seemed pretty hawkish. So are plenty of others.
You’ve forgotten the attempted assassination of George Bush I? You’ve forgotten the invasion of Kuwait, an ally? You’re aware that there was never an armistice signed, right? There was a cease-fire with conditions - conditions that Iraq has violated. So the U.S. has the legal right to attack.
[quote]
Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
[quote]
Tell that to the Clinton administration, which effected regime change in the Balkans, against the desires of the security council. And we all know how relevant those 400 year-old treaties are in the modern world.
Absolutely. Which is why they bent over backwards to play ball with the U.S. In short, they straightened up and flew right. Saddam didn’t.
It is hopeful that they can not retaliate now, which is why time is of the essence. Once we know they can wipe a couple of American cities off the map, it will be too late.
Yes.
No. Yes. Off the top of my head…I know Iraq provides money to the families of suicide bombers.
As far as I can tell, nobody is really sure where they went. They could still be in Afghanistan, or they could be in Chechnya. Who knows?
No.
I don’t think there is any doubt that Iraq is sponsoring terrorism. It is quite clear the Saddam is bent on dominating the ergion. Stopping him before he gets the bomb is safer than after he gets it. Samll time terrorist groups can’t exist without nation-state supporters.
No, and I doubt Osama wants Saddam killed by us. I KNOW he doesn’t want a democratic country where freedom is more common than reppression disguised as religion.
Nuclear bombs. You do the math.
Today. Were we prepared for the casualties on 9/11? Are we prepared for more of the same if we do not act? Are we prepared for millions of deaths if a nuclear weapon is used on American soil?
Yes. Just look at the history of oil prices during the first gulf war, we seemed to live through that one. I highly doubt we will be there 30 years. Maybe you have some reason to think it would take us that long?
Yes.
I agree, but if you are complaining now, think how upset you would be if we labelled all those dictators as future targets.
No.
Who knows? Who cares?
Could you be more specific? It’s hard to know who you are talking about. Maybe you could give us a name or two. I’m sure everybody’s reasons are just a little different.
It’s the same moral arguement that allows the police to kick in the door of a suspect if they think he has a weapon. Some people just can not be trusted with certian objects, and Saddam can not be trusted with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Probably. As far as I can tell, they have fixed that problem.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think you might want to know in case you didn’t already.
Ron Paul isn’t exactly a mainstream Republican. As a matter of fact, he can be counted on to vote against most any legislation that increases government power – no matter who introduced the legislation.
You see, he’s a Libertarian in GOP clothes. As a matter of fact, he ran for president as a Libertarian. He sits with the GOP in the House because that’s the easiest way for him to get elected in Texas.
Having said that, Ron Paul isn’t a bad guy. He has very strong beliefs, he is very clear about them and his constituents continue to elect him. If any one in Congress is incorruptible, it is probably Ron Paul.
Sorry about the slight hijack, but full disclosure and all.
I actually met him a long time ago. Very personable, but a bit extreme, to the right, in my book.
Is it not true that phrasing questions in this awkward style tends to confuse and turn off the target audience, in addition to making one sound like the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy?
True.
Is it not true that despite the fact that many of these questions are idiotic or non sequiturs (not to mention the reference to the Treaty of Westphalia) and that Ron Paul shares numerous similarities with a jackass, that I do not currently support going to war with Iraq?
Indeed. I’m a fan, and I’d certainly still vote for him, but the knowledge that this glurge came from him knocks him down a few notches in my estimation.
Oh, and what Sam Stone said. Thanks Sam! I’d never have the patience to take down something like that point by point.
Some of Paul’s questions are valid but he misses the best questions to which no one has provided any good answers for the simple reason that none exist.
As of now Saddam has good incentives to not use or give away his bio/chemical weapons. Once he is attacked that deterrence is gone. What will prevent him from passing his weapons to terrorists? What will be the consequences for US security if terrorists have the capacity to kill millions of Americans?
2)If Saddam attacks Israel and even a couple of Scuds get through with bio/chem weapons and the right delivery mechanisms,wind conditions etc. thousands of Israelis could be killed. What do you think Israel’s reaction will be? How will the Arab world react to Israel’s response?
3)Suppose the US removes Saddam’s regime by war. There will be a period with no government. The US doesn’t know the location of the weapons facilities. How can it ensure that it controls every single weapons facility? What will be the consequences if rogue elements or terrorists manage to steal from even one weapons facility?
How can the US ensure a friendly government in Iraq in the long term. What if a future Iraqi authoritarian government starts building weapons of mass destruction? What if there is a Shia-dominated regime in Iraq which teams up with Iran to develop nuclear weapons?
“There was a cease-fire with conditions - conditions that Iraq has violated. So the U.S. has the legal right to attack.”
The cease-fire was a UN ceasefire. Only the UN has the authority to decide how to respond to ceasefire violations. It is not automatic that the only response to violations is war. So no the US doesn’t have the legal right to attack without UN support.
This is short-term thinking. In the mysteries I read, there are a lot of blackmailers. There are three traditional ways to deal with a blackmailer. You can let him release the harmful information, you can pay his monitary demand, or you can murder him. However, if you choose to pay his demand, there will be continuing, unending demands.
What will we do if Saddam invades Kuwait again with conventional weapons, but with the threat that if we intervene, he may pass his WMDs to terrorists? Suppose he then conquers Saudi Arabia. Imagine what that would do to the world economy.
Israel dealt with Saddam’s nuclear program in 1981. The US dealt with Saddam in 1991. The problem of Saddam isn’t going away. Yes, we can buy time by not attacking now, but the problem will still be there. As Iraq’s WMD arsenal grows, our options will become worse and worse.
Um you are not answering the question but simply wishing it away. Even if you think the US should take the consequences, minimal intellectual honesty requires an attempt to examine those consequences properly first.
You are also making the mistake of confusing defensive deterrence and offensive deterrence(ie blackmail). The former is a lot more credible. For instance it was credible that the Soviet Union might retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked directly by the US. This didn’t mean that the Soviets could use nuclear blackmail to , say, grab West Berlin.
Cyberpundit’s questions are much better than Ron Paul’s. Let’s look at them:
I would add to that the risk of him actually having a WMD available for firing now, and the war causes him to fire it.
I think this is currently a significant risk in the war. And the U.S. government knows it, because they are already working to stop that scenario.
Saddam can’t fire those weapons himself. All he can do is give orders to others to fire them. And that’s the weak link. The U.S. has to make sure that those orders are not followed. They are doing this in two ways. The first has already started - the U.S. has already dropped over a million leaflets over various Iraqi military installations. These leaflets explain that anyone who launches weapons of mass destruction will be tried as a war criminal. There will be no ‘Nuremberg defense’ (“I was just following orders”). On the other hand, the leaflets also say that anyone who refuses orders to fire those weapons will be allowed to stay in their positions in the post-Saddam government.
The other strategy for stopping an attack is a lightning war in which the ‘head’ of Iraq is cut off faster than they can keep up with, severing command and control and preventing orders from getting out to commanders in the field. Also, the U.S. apparently has some new fancy jamming equipment that can play havoc with communications.
That’s not a perfect answer, and there is a risk. But, IMO there are bigger risks in doing nothing.
Depends on the Israeli response. If it’s proportional, and if it’s targeted at the government and not civilians, then I don’t think the Arab world will get too bent out of shape over it. They understand self defense, and they understand retribution for being attacked first. So if Israel responds by bombing the presidential sites, the Arab world will stay relatively quiet. If Israel responds by carpet-bombing Baghdad or firing a nuclear weapon, then all hell will break loose. But Israel won’t do that, IMO.
The most likely response for Israel I believe would be to simply join the allied effort in some way. Sharon would need to show the Israeli people that he was willing to defend them, but the U.S. will have some say in exactly how he does that.
The U.S. will do exactly what it did at the end of the Gulf War - call a halt to ALL movement in the country. Trucks, cars, anything. Anything that moves on the ground will be destroyed.
The only weapons that can be moved easily would be biological. Chemical weapons are very large - it takes tons of the stuff to do widespread damage. If someone tries to move chemical weapons, the U.S. will know.
But again, the real risk of an action against Iraq is that radiological weapons could wind up in the hands of terrorists. That’s a lot harder to stop, because they are easier to move. That’s why the U.S. can’t wait until Saddam has nuclear weapons.
After the destruction of the Hussein regime, Iraq is probably the last country that we’ll have to worry about. You can bet that the U.S. will scour that country clean. And I think everyone expects some form of U.N. presence in Iraq for years or even decades. Korea has had troops there since 1953.
The U.S. already has to maintain tens of thousands of troops in the Gulf region because of Saddam. He is costing America billions of dollars a year right now. So moving a semi-permanent presence into Iraq won’t be any more expensive than maintaining those same troops in Saudi Arabia today, plus having to keep a carrier group in the Gulf.
I think you missed the biggest risk of all, which is that the U.S. doesn’t manage to decapitate Saddam’s regime, and it holds power and takes a stand in Baghdad. If that happens, we’re looking at very ugly urban warfare, and that will play havoc not with just the Iraqi people, but with world opinion.
But that’s balanced by the possibility that the Hussein government will collapse before a shot is fired. Saddam maintains power through fear. The minute the people around him fear the United States more than they fear Saddam, all bets are off.
This is a good question, better if you don’t think Saddam has already struck up deals with terrorists, which I don’t. I guess the only good answer would be to wrap it up quickly, use unmanned planes to spot all ground movement. I don’t know if Saddam is going to be hiding in a bunker or on the run when U.S. troops make their way towards Baghdad. Hopefully, he’ll be in a bunker in one of his palaces and we’ll have destroyed enough of his communications quickly enough so he can’t bark out orders to distribute his weapons that aren’t hidden in Baghdad, to his “clients”. Anyway its seems his palaces would most likely be the best place to store his weapons, since those are the places he is so uptight about allowing weapons inspectors into, it would make it harder to distribute the weapons if that were the case. Either way, once we win, we’ll have troops on the ground and be able to account for more of his weapons. I’d think thats a better option than to leaving Saddam to account for his weapons.
**
I think the arabs are scared of Saddam, if Israel defends herself then I’m not sure the arabs would be so mad. Also, I don’t think a lot of arabs would be to keen on escalating a situation which didn’t involve their respective coutries with U.S. troops in the region.
Well, thats why we have troops in the area scouring the land. We use our intelligence community to help find the terrorists. I am not to sure where they would go with their weapons, they still have to remain hidden and thats harder to do with unfriendly powers working so close. I don’t think Iran or any other nearby nation would be to enthusiastic about letting in terrorists with uranium or anthrax into their country for a number of reasons.
“Saddam can’t fire those weapons himself. All he can do is give orders to others to fire them. And that’s the weak link.”
The problem is that regime change doesn’t just mean the end of Saddam personally but his closest associates as well, his family, his closest tribal associates and all those who participated in his crimes. All of them will be toast if his regime falls. A few of them may be fanatically loyal to Saddam also. And these loyalists can easily force more people at gun point to follow orders. So someone operating a missile launcher would have the choice between certain death (and probably a very painful one) at the hands of a Saddam loyalist now versus possible death at the hands of the US later. What is he likely to choose?
Besides it doesn’t take that many people to launch missiles or prepare to hand over bio/chemical weapons to terrorists. For the latter option most of the risks will be taken by the terrorists anyway and the hardcore ones are unlikely to be deterred by US threats.
“If Israel responds by carpet-bombing Baghdad or firing a nuclear weapon, then all hell will break loose. But Israel won’t do that, IMO.”
If the Israeli deaths are below a hundred I would agree. If they are in the thousands it’s very difficult to say. I don’t think Israel will be satisfied with relatively minor military retaliation. That many deaths aren’t probable but they certainly can’t be ruled out.
“The U.S. will do exactly what it did at the end of the Gulf War - call a halt to ALL movement in the country. Trucks, cars, anything.”
But what are the chances of the US successfully enforcing this in such a large country? Remember it only takes one shipment of biological or chemical(especially nerve agents) weapons to be able to kill millions of people. And there are probably many terrorist groups willing to take near-suicidal risks to get their hands on refined bio/chem weapons.
The other possibility is Shia and Kurdish groups grabbing the weapons themselves. Is the US likely to start fighting these groups?
About post-Saddam Iraq I think the point is that a future government could easily re-start clandestine weapons facilities . Would the US threaten war again? What if a future authoritarian government demands the withdrawl of US or UN troops? I don’t think we can assume that Iraqis will create a stable democratic government which wants to co-operate with the US. And there is at least one scenario which is worse than the status quo: an authoritarian Shia-dominated government which teams up with Iran to produce weapon of mass destruction. Paradoxically Saddam’s very notoriety makes him more containable since he knows he is on top of the suspect list and being watched closely. Some less known authoritarian government may well have more freedom.
And I should stress that I don’t support doing nothing but rather using the threat of war to get the unfettered inspectors back in including the presidential sites. Inspections might not be a perfect solution but I think my questions show that even regime change won’t guarantee complete US control over Iraqi unconventional weapons. So why not choose the much less costly and risky solution?
They were our ally about 30 seconds after the war as well…after that, they started to build the puppet governments of Eastern Europe, and to force the coalition out of Germany. Can you say Berlin Air Lift?
Oh, Sam. The Ruskies had the bomb about 5 years later, they detonated their first in '49 I believe.
username,
Your arguments seem to about reducing the dangers I have identified but they can’t eliminate them or even come close to doing that. This is important because critics of inspections sometimes argue that inspections can’t gurantee disarmament. That is not much of an argument ,though, since regime change can’t do this either. Of the two, inspections at has a track record whereas regime change is basically a lottery.
So we have to choose between two somewhat imperfect methods of disarmament. It makes sense to try the less costly (by far) and less risky one. Also if inspections don’t work, the regime change option is always open whereas if regime change is tried it is irreversible.
This was a good argument in 1991. However, we have now tried UN inspections for 11 years. We have tried Security Council resolutions, economic sanctions and miltary threats to force the inspections. They simply haven’t worked. Saddam has built an arsenal of WMDs as well as missiles to deliver them.
Since inspections haven’t worked for 11 long years, it’s unrealistically optimistic to imagine that they’ll work now.
