Attack Iraq?

Great Debates
1

I recently saw a good Frontline about this.

As I see it, the last time the U.S. had sufficient reason to attack Iraq was in 1998 when Saddam threw the UN inspection teams out. It is a too late to act on that. Iraq has, wisely, chosen not to invade any neighbors in the interim.

Iraq has not attacked the United States. Saddam is not massing troops on the border. There is strong evidence that the Iraqi government supports terror - but so do Saudi Arabia and Iran. Preempting an attack is a good thing. But can we go around “preempting” everyone who scares us?

This would be no War on Terrorism. Iraq is a nation. Don’t we have to declare war on Iraq to invade them? I know it is passe to actually declare war, but it seems like a prerequisite in this case.

Does the United States want to act with (at best) little international support? Most nations want to trade with Iraq, not invade it.

Might Saddam use weapons of mass destruction? In a survival situation why would he not use them? He is probably dead either way. Why not kill lots of Americans and be a “hero” in death? I understand that this apparent willingness to use WMDs can also be used as a justification to attack. But Iraq is hardly alone in pursuing WMDs or the willingness to use them. China is piling up offensive missiles near the South China Sea to threaten Taiwan - yet there are no U.S. invasion plans for China that I am aware of. Unless moving industrial production to China counts as an invasion, in which case the invasion is already underway.

Governance after any war may be the thorniest issue. A U.S. backed puppet government would probably not survive, in addition to being illegal* and immoral. I don’t think anyone can predict what might happen in the nation or region if we attack.

*International law is rarely clear but is pretty settled on wars of conquest.

2

I’ve never seen strong evidence that Iraq supports exported terrorism. A cite would be nice. Everything I’ve ever seen is that while Saddam is a right bastard, he is not big on exporting terrorism.

also beware of unintended consequences. The Kurds looking for a greater Kurdistan would understandably upset our Turkish allies. Iraq has long been a counter balance to Iran. I’m sure there are more issues out there but just these two off of the top of my head.

3

The way I read it is that the planning is going ahead full steam (down Florida way) and Bush would like to have the option to go by early next year (re-election 2003/4)

However, he doesn’t really have that option yet (assuming the pre-requisite of some international support) but he’s working on engineering support.

Probably won’t get support without serious progress on a Palestinian State – hence, the speech of 24th June re a “provisional” State and the basis that creates for ‘discussion’ (possible Mid East Conference in the Autumn/Fall). But that, in itself, probably won’t be sufficient to bring most of Europe, militarily, on board although it would temper the wrath of the Muslim world somewhat.

Needs real, tangible progress quickly.

No question about wanting the option – would it get him Saddam (NB. OBL and Omah) – who replaces the current regime – has Bush actually got the balls – what else might give him a re-election boost - what will it take to garner military allies ?

…long way to go yet.
Would Saddam use a chemical/biological/nuclear option in time (assuming the practicalities) – from the POV of a US Administration, it’s very risky now to leave him be, unpredictability is not reassuring. Need some kind of workable removal strategy.

4

They’ve been predicting an imminent invasion of Iraq since November. I’ve heard the cries of wolf enough to know it’s spin. No invasion will take place anytime soon.

5

I agree with RickJay. It just looks like a smokescreen for whatever the administration doesn’t feel like responding to (i.e., their own troubles).

6

terrorism cite I lead with the cite. The link works.

Frontline Summary:

The Iraqui defectors say that Saddam has terrorist training camps. (sound familiar?) Frontline bought some commercial spy sattelite time and confirmed that two are there. There is some kind of airline sized and shaped trainer that is used to train terrorists how to serve drinks and use their seat cushions as flotation devices. Or, maybe, it is used for something else.

China Guy I pretty much agree. As bad as the devil I do know is (Saddam), the devil I don’t know scares the hell out of me.

**Florida ** BOW TO US!! Grovel you slimey worms. You want an F-117 up your ass? It is strange to think that the war plan is being cooked up where I used to go pick up canned soup with my dad. McDill AFB - Not Just a Good PX. Even stranger is the thought that they will command the war from there.

workable removal strategy Care to elaborate on that one, ** London_Calling** ?

Exploding cigars? Guns which explode when fired into the air? Short circuit his moustache trimmer? Or, put in troops, armor, special forces, thousands of air sorties, etc? I like the first three.

7

More cites. From the well respected* TV program Sightings. UFO’s are real, were stationed at McDill AFB. I am pretty sure this somehow relates to President Bush and the 2004 election. As you know McDill is in Florida. Everything in Florida happens as a result of some kind of family cabal between George and Jeb.
*Of course in this case well respected is used in the context of being not respected by anyone at all. Wholly and completely discredited on virtually everything is more like it.

8

At this point I can see no European support for this and mush opposition everywhere. I cannot see it happening.

9

OK, but how can European support or oppositon matter if the Commander in Chief wants to invade? Iraq was behind the 93 Trade Center bomb, according to the Frontline. Nothing was ever done about that.

Moreover, from the Frontline:

Saddam is really out to get us for the last war. Remember the attempted assasination of Bush I? That, I think, is why Bush II wants to get the bastard. Saddam tried to kill his dad. Why invade before the second term elections? Because that way he is sure he can prosecute the war to its completion.

To view all this in purely international and political terms is to ignore most of what is going on here.

To me, one really tough question is whether Bush has to get a declaration of war? Nobody wants to touch that one. I don’t think he does if the terrror nexus is good enough.

10

>> OK, but how can European support or oppositon matter if the Commander in Chief wants to invade?

You really think the US could have pulled off the Gulf War, the Afghan war or some such war without foreign support? You can’t be serious.

11

This changes the subject quite a bit, but I really don’t understand why the U.S. is so adament about upholding economic sanctions against Iraq, besides to save face (see Cuba) or from looking like a coward for backing down on sanctions that are mainly harming the innocent populations!

And here is an exerpt from a term paper I recently wrote, "The sanctions have been proven to the international community that they are only harming the innocent while the upper levels of the Iraqi civilization are facing no hardships. In 1996 when asked about her opinion of the sanctions that have directly been causing the death of over 500,000 Iraqi children, Madeleine Albright, then Secretary of State said it was difficult, but, “We think the price is worth it.”

12

Thats not to say I at all support the Iraqi regime, but I just feel that there could be a better way to deal with the situation than causing the innocent population to suffer!

But is the U.S. going to war and overthrowing Saddam the correct responce either? I really don’t know.

13

In this thread about the ICC our newest member ElJeffe asserts:

and, rather than highjack that thread I thought it more appropriate to address his post in this thread.

ElJeffe, you obviously know little about what you are talking about. The Gulf war and the war in Afghanistan depended to a very large extent on international support. The US used bases in Europe and other parts, many countries sent troops, ships, and other material help and very importantly, provided diplomatic support. If the US were to attack another country in the face of international opposition, the results would be disastrous. The US isolated in confrontation with the rest of the world would not come out on top.

>> They need our money too much to piss us off too badly (who do you think funds the UN, and all those humanitarian missions?)

What world do you live in? Europe needs your money? For what exactly? It has been pointed out in several other threads that the US is by no means the largest help donor.

So, with all due respect, I think it is your post that is a load of bull. But welcome to the board anyway. You might learn a thing or two if you hang around.

14

War in Afghanistan: Off topic but was conducted almost entirely by Afghanis.
Gulf War: I think the U.S. could have pulled it off with less allied support but what ifs are hard to analyze.
If ElJeffe had a valid point it was probably that with the use of a couple nations as staging areas we could invade Iraq. In theory, an invasion can be staged from one nation, or none. I do not endorse ElJeffe’s general tone.

15

Beagle, in Afghanistan the infantry were the local Afghans but they had massive air and logistic support from the US and its allies. There are troops from many nations there still as peacekeeping. I suppose the US could have gone alone but at an enormous cost. Imagine no stopovers for refuelling, no logistic help from anyone and strong diplomatic opposition. The cost would probably be so high that the US would not go it alone.

Gulf war, same thing. I am not saying it is impossible but it is much less likely. The cost of that war, in effort and monetary cost was quite spread out. If the US went alone and against the rest of the world the monetary cost would multiply by a lot, the political and diplomatic consequences would be too high, etc.

So what I mean is not that the US cannot possibly do something like that alone, rather that the effective cost in money, effort, diplomacy etc, is so huge that it would make no sense.

Yes, the US could nuke Irak tomorrow but does it make any sense? No it doesn’t because the result would be a US isolated and in confrontation with the entire rest of the world. It would be a net loss for the US. That’s what I mean.

In the case of Irak it is my prediction that the US will not attack Irak without strong European support which it does not have right now. If the US were to attack Irak in the face of European opposition, it would be a net loss for the US.

The strength of the US in many cases is its capacity to unite allies on its side but many Americans seem to not understand this and think the US is doing it all alone.

16

sailor Ah, logistics. Yes, those would be a nightmare without allies.
nukes I don’t think those are on the table - but, hey, I’m not in charge.
The interesting questions involve strategy, alliances, and probabilities of success. I think going it alone with Iraq is not justified right now. One wonders what Saddam has in store for us now that he knows he is in the crosshairs. We rattled the sabre, now he reacts.

17

For what it’s worth…

It seems that our newcomer and Beagle are overlooking little details like world stability and security, and completely lacking in analysis capacity as to the consequences of using one’s military might wantonly. Just because the US has the technical and material capacity to fight a war against Iraq, does not mean that it has the political capacity to do so.

Disregardful of ElJeffe’s thoughts on the rest of the world there are quite a few nations who martially speaking could. Such as:

France, yes you idiot France who have nukes and in view of her size a rather disproportionate military machine
The UK
China
Russia
India

That is only to mention the absolutely most patently obvious ones. For crying out loud; with the state that Iraq is in, Austria could probably attack her and win.

Now, I would like to see the US administration laying out a stable security plan after having pissed off all of the above nations to the point where they are either no longer allies or downright enemies by acting like an aggressor on the world theatre.

Uncharacteristically of me I will let the EU slurs pass… methinks that our new arrival isn’t worth the effort.

I’ll only say this to you young ElJeffe; your words and opinions are un-American to the point of being an insult to the foundation of your proud nation and what it stands for.

Sparc

18

Ooooops Sorry. I thought I was in a different Forum. I deeply apologize for the two ad-hominems that were completely and utterly off topic.

Kudos to you sailor for taking it here and not where I thought you did.

I am the idiot.

Sparc

19

Just for example: the US does not have the capacity to police all the boats and ships coming and going in the area which may be carrying contraband or terrorists. There are naval ships from many nations there and probably most European nations have sent some of their ships. The US just could not do such an operation without allied help.

Piss off all your allies and good luck with this kind of stuff. In fact, during the Afghan campaign the US had to pull troops from other places and had to ask other countries to fill in and even asked NATO to provide air patrols around the US. Anyone who thinks the US can effectively fight such a war with the opposition of the rest of the wrold is very mistaken. Unfortunately too many Americans believe this kind of stuff and this leads to jingoism.

20

Well, the exploding cigar would be nice. Or even ye olde viral hair colouring trick. But that aside, the key is, obviously, to engineer a replacement regime that is both acceptable to the Iraqi people and the West. No point knocking off Saddam if there’s just a political power vacuum – anything could happen.

Don’t really want a repeat of Afghanistan where the West went leadership shopping after the fact. Necessary in that instance but vaguely unsightly, IMHO, and to be avoided if at all possible.

Problem is, of course, Saddam isn’t noted for being overly sympathetic to opposition – very difficult to field a contender when most potential candidates lie somewhere down the plughole of an acid bath.

Agreed on point one and two. FWIW ElJeffe, you’ll see from this link(1995 figures) that the US doesn’t contribute anything like as much as ‘Europe’ – in fact, it contributes less than just three European nations combined (France, Germany and the UK). And less now than as quoted below because the US renegotiated its contributions (again) in the closing days of the Clinton Administration:

US - £1, 836
Japan - $1,432
Germany – $856
France – $629
UK - 588
Re An Iraqi military campaign:

In theory and as I understand it, Iraq is ‘doable’ militarily with the aid of just three nations; Turkey, Kuwait and the UK, not incidentally “England”. It’s a long way from being the preferred option nor is it sensible politically, but it is thought feasible.

Turkey for the air bases and support network, Kuwait for the land-based campaign and the UK for Diego Garcia (not a long-lost relative of Jerry, as one imagines, ElJeffe might assume), without which, it is apparently believed by planners, the necessary airlift would not be possible.