Trusting Saddam is not the issue. Even under the “flawed” inspection regime, where he didn’t cooperate, huge quantities of his weapons were destoryed. The next set of inspectors will likely do better since the threat of war will enable tougher conditions and Saddam will be probably be scared into a much greater degree of cooperation.
As for your other points:
1)The US doesn’t likely know where many of the weapons are kept so it is not a simple matter of bombing them or capturing them after the war.
2)Destroying the Iraqi army is not the same things as controlling every square mile of Iraqi territory
We are talking about about maybe a couple of dozen terrorists or rogues with a few vehicles sneaking out of Iraq in the middle of night. It would be nearly impossible for US forces to prevent this no matter how comprehensively they beat the Iraqi army.
Let me remind you that US forces allowed key Al-queda men including maybe Bin Laden to slip away in Afghanistan. Winning a war is not the same as complete,perfect control of a country.
“we don’t know for a fact that Iraq is not already distributing WMD to terrorists”
We can’t be 100% sure but there is no evidence that this has happened and as I have explained many times Saddam has good incentives to not do this.
What we do know for sure is that once he realizes he is toast, Saddam will make every effort to pass his weapons to terrorists. That is not a risk to be taken lightly and it means that war can only be considered an instrument of very last resort.
“a simple matter for the Iraqis to whisk their fissionable material, extraction labs, bio-warfare refinement plants, and so forth, off to safety.”
I need to clarify this further:you seem to be confused about the scale of things. It’s not a matter of the Iraqis taking off with their entire weapons-making infrastructure. It’s a matter of small groups of terrorists or rogue-elements taking off with enough weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans. When you are talking about biological or chemical weapons you are talking about stuff which could probably fit in one car or even much less.
The fundamental mistake that many people make is to confuse the fall of Saddam’s regime with American control of his weapons. The two are not the same thing. There is a big gap between the first and the second and all sorts of very nasty things can easily happen in that gap.
I keep hearing that the aftermath of war in Iraq would be ‘chaos’.
That may be true, but it’s important to remember that Iraq is not afghanistan. It is a modern country with a large infrastructure. It has a big middle class. It has a civil service. I think the model for the post-Saddam Iraq would probably be more like the aftermath of a coup in Argentina. The best-case scenario (and probably the most likely one) is that the Hussein regime will fall BEFORE the U.S. invades.
Saddam maintains his power through fear, and for no other reason. The minute the Iraqis fear the American military more than they fear Saddam, he’s in big trouble.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the following happened: Iraq either refuses inspections, or starts playing games thinking they can get away with it. The U.S. immediately withdraws the inspectors, shuts of all relations with Iraq, and begins jamming their communications and replacing it with American television. Millions of leaflets are dropped saying, “We’re coming - remember what happened last time? Anyone who fires on us, dies.” The citizens receive television and radio broadcasts telling that Saddam is toast.
Saddam blusters, announces the mother of all new battles, etc. The U.S. ignores him, and the military starts to move. Suddenly, a new voice appears on TV - the ‘interim leader’ announcing that Saddam is dead. The new regime regrets all previous actions, welcomes the Americans as friends, yada yada. Saddam’s body is shown being dragged through the streets of Iraq by cheering mobs. People dance in the street, the Americans land, negotiators arrive in Baghdad, and the restructuring of Iraq begins.
That’s a very plausible scenario. Not guaranteed, but very possible.
One big reason Iraq is not Argentina is that it is seething with ethnic hatreds from decades of authoritarian rule. Both Kurds and the Shia who were brutally put down a decade ago. Both of them are itching for revenge. If Saddam falls there could easily be a bloodbath if either of them start a civil war.
Don’t forget that most of the senior military in Iraq belong to the Sunni minority. Many of the have been party to Saddam’s crimes.The Shias and the Kurds probably hate them as much as Saddam. So a coup doesn’t necessarily produce stability.
BTW what happens after a coup( assuming for the moment that there is stability) ? The weapons will still be there but with Saddam gone most of the causus belli evaporates. What if the new military leadership decides to keep its unconventional weapons or build new ones? How will the US ensure disarmament? How do we know the new leaderhsip is less dangerous than Saddam?
Sam, such a rosy scenario, as cheerful and cozy as a warm, crackling napalm fire on a cool, crisp November corpse. Its seems almost churlish to cast doubt. But one must. For instance, the testimony of Mr. Kristoff, who has been on the scene.
But lets focus on your cheerful picture of Baghdad spreading roses at the feet of our victorious army. More to the point, perhaps, Baghdad itself.
It is a given, is it not, that there will be no settlement, should our Feckless Leader have his way. We will most assuredly not stop short of Baghdad, as before. Therefore, we must assume that, if the conquest of Baghdad by force is required, it will be done, rather than leave the matter unresolved.
How many people in Baghdad. Millions. If they wake up in the morning to find thier city under attack, they have basicly three options: stay where they are, and hope for the best (hide), leave the city if permitted, by stealth if not (flee) or take up small arms and ambushes against the invading foreigner (fight). The final makeup of the population of Baghdad will be made up of these three different cannon fodder groups. In what proportions is anybody’s guess.
If a million people pour out of Baghdad into the surrounding Godforsaken Desert, what possible provisions can we make for them? Enough tents? Enough water? Enough food? Clearly, the logistical burden of victory is huge under the best of circumstances. That’s flee.
They hide, cower in thier homes on whatever supplies they can hoard, and play collateral damage roulette with thier asses. If a fanatic opens fire on US mobile infantry from the floor above thier apartment, they can likely kiss that ass goodbye. Oh, well, [shrug], collateral damage, can’t be helped, thats war.
Bad enough. But we still have our third, fight. I am entirely sympathetic to the supposition that most of Saddam bin Ladens troops will not fight to save him. They didn’t fight to hold Kuwait. But will they fight for the homeland? Will they respond to that most ancient and atavistic of brutal instinct: fight the invader.
Neccesarily, some will. Expecially those whose entire standing in Iraq is dependent upon Saddam’s continued existence. How many more will be motivated when they hear how Bush threatened to try every Iraqi soldier as a war criminal? (The fact that we both know he didn’t is quite beside the point, it doesn’t matter what we believe, or even what is true).
The you have the worse possible scenario outside of defeat: house to house warfare through the streets of Baghdad. Body bags for ours, communal ditches for them. The wholesale destruction of residential Baghdad such that the refugees we have impelled to flee Baghdad have no place to return to.
Then our incursion into Iraq is seen in the world at large, but most especially in the Muslim world, as a wholesale slaughter visited upon innocent people by a vastly superior power in a pre-emptive, aggressive war.
It won’t gain us any friends, to be sure. And the harvest in reborn enemies will be bountiful indeed, as bountiful as the whirlwind. Who then will dare speak in Iran, or Libya, or Yemen, about negotiating with the Americans, of compromise, of seeking a peaceful solution?
And there we will be, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of refugees, in a smoking ruin of a city, and digging God-only-knows how many graves in the sand.
Ah! Victory! I can hardly wait for the Franklin Mint commemoration of the glory!
Bush: If you are going to asttack Iraq, won’t you have to attack Iran as well? Won’t they feel at least a liitle nervous about the Great Satan surrounding them from east and west?
Oh yes. Nicholas Kristof and his incredible knowledge of Iraq coming from viewing a few potemkin villages and hearing about the Iraqi leader from people with guns to their heads. Not exactly a scientific sampling of opinion.
On the other hand, we have “intelligence experts inside and outside of the Bush administration” who think that the Saddam coup is quite possible.
But again, I’m not saying that this is the way it WILL be. And in fact, I was one of the first people on this board to talk about the risk of urban warfare (although your scenario is silly - a million people running out into the desert? uh huh).
War has risk. My comment about the possible coup was my description of the BEST outcome. Urban warfare with high casualties, coupled with biological or chemical attacks on Israel, is the worst outcome. Or any variation between those extremes.
“Nicholas Kristof and his incredible knowledge of Iraq coming from viewing a few potemkin villages and hearing about the Iraqi leader from people with guns to their heads”
If you actually read Kristoff’s article you will find that the people he talks to aren’t afraid to criticize Saddam as well. So no they probably don’t have a gun to their head. There was another American reporter who had visited Iraq some time back. On NPR he said that one of the things that surprised him the most was that people were not scared of speaking frankly about Saddam. Sometimes you learn things by actually visiting a place rather than pontificating from the offices of the Weekly Standard and the National Review.
Besides as I said in my last post, a coup isn’t some kind of magic bullet. It all depends on what the new leadership is like and how the Shias and Kurds react.
The worst outcome (or more accurately one of the many possible disastrous outcomes) isn’t even really a worst-case scenario more of likeliest scenario. When he realizes he is toast Saddam will do his best to pass on his weapons to terrorists. The US has no reliable way of preventing this.
In a way all the discussion here about the US preventing missile launches to Israel or how chaotic Iraq will be after the war is moot. The simplest danger is just Saddam giving away his stuff when attacked. Then we will live in a world where terrorists, who can’t be deterred unlike Saddam, have the means to kill millions of people around the world with biological or chemical weapons.
This underlines the perversity of the Administration claim that one of the reasons to fight is to prevent Saddam from working with terrorists. In fact there is almost no better way of getting Saddam to work with terrorists than fighting a war for “regime change”.
I rather doubt it, Cyber. BAck against the wall, Saddam bin Laden will use what he has, rather than give it away. I think it especially unlikely that he will donate such weapons to people he clearly cannot trust.
Nonetheless, we end up in Baghdad with Al-Jazeera broadcasting streets full of “collatteral damage” as we explain that we have “liberated” the Iraqi people.
Now, it may be that the Gods of War will smile on us, and no assault on Baghdad will be necessary. But of course, we cannot know this, so it must be assumed from the git-go that we may have to. And thus we create thousands and thousands of virulent and vengeful enemies.
“BAck against the wall, Saddam bin Laden will use what he has, rather than give it away. I think it especially unlikely that he will donate such weapons to people he clearly cannot trust.”
Well he will probably do try to do both; use some his weapons and give some of them away. From his pov the problem with using his weapons is that he doesn’t have any completely reliable delivery mechanisms .
The point about trust is relevant now ie in peacetime, but if Saddam knows he is finished I doubt he will care; he will just do everything to hurt the US as much as he can
I keep reading variations of this comment. But, I never see a cite. I never see evidence. Maybe it’s part of this week’s Talking Points.
Also, it’s somewhat inconsistent to claim that Saddam is sane enough to be deterred, but insane enough to loose WMDs on the world. I guess it’s possible that he’s semi-insane – i.e., just crazy enough to follow that exact path. But, that seems like a long shot. I wouldn’t want to bet on it.
Seriously, we simply don’t know what Saddam will do if he “knows he is finished.” I have seen one article suggesting that he would flee to some other nation. Given the wealth he has, that makes sense to me. Why would he hang around to be killed or imprisoned?
Even if he’s still in Iraq, he may have higher priorities than providing WMDs to terrorist groups. In fact, the war might help protect us by preventing them from getting in and out of Iraq.
If he does flee, the worst thing he could do is to provoke the West to take revenge. He might be legally safe from extradition, but no doubt the CIA or British Intelligence could get him if they really wanted to.
Furthermore, what’s the worst thing Saddam can do if we don’t attack? Answer: nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail. That’s not so good, either.
“Also, it’s somewhat inconsistent to claim that Saddam is sane enough to be deterred, but insane enough to loose WMDs on the world.”
Huh again? The two represent his responses in completely different situations. If his regime and life are not threatened he will likely be deterred. But if he is about to die and has nothing to lose then he will loose WMD on the world. Since we all agree that he is thoroughly evil, why wouldn’t he do this if he has nothing to lose.
It is the hawks who are inconsistent. They claim that Saddam will pass on weapons to terrorists even without US provocation but then assume that he won’t do this after he is attacked. Deterrence supposedly doesn’t work in peacetime (when Saddam has everything to lose) but works in wartime (when he has little or nothing to lose). Quite absurd.
As for the exile option it is not very realistic. Which country will accept him? Who will guarantee his safe passage out of Iraq? The fact is the moment he loses his grip on power he is probably a dead man. So is his family, most likely. And he knows this.
I may be wrong, but not inconsistent. My position is that Saddam is apt to use his WMDs against us and our friends whether or not we attack him. So, it’s better to take him out before he gets nukes.
Regarding the exile idea, the article I read actually mentioned a country, but I cannot recall which it was. Wealthy Nazis found places that would take them, so why not Saddam?
Well your position seems to imply that Saddam doesn’t respond to incentives which is not inconsistent per se but implausible in the light of his past history.
About exile even if some country can be found there is the question of safe passage out of Iraq and convincing Saddam that he will be safe even after he loses power.
Besides if as you believe Saddam’s great goal in life is not survival but using his WMD against his enemies why would he tamely accept exile? Wouldn’t he prefer to go down fighting? If survival is his goal why would he make unprovoked attacks on the US and risk his life? So your position is in fact quite inconsistent.