Attack Iraq?

Great Debates
21

I think that the Frontline link I provided makes it pretty clear that the United States has some justification for going after Saddam Hussein.

WWII is often viewed by historians as being the inevitable result of the uneasy peace which followed WWI. The dismantling of German factories in the Ruhr Valley bears some economic resemblance to prolonged economic sanctions on Iraq.

In other words: Saddam is pissed, another war is going to happen one way or another.

France Still blow nukes up in the Pacific. [outrageous French accent] Hey, don’t you fuck with us, Ami pigs! flicks cigarette ash[/outrageous French accent]

22

Beagle… I was posting without having read the thread since I was somewhat confused as to my precise location. With morning coffee in hand, enjoying my first cigarette I chocked on a certain other post, saw a link where I could comment on its outrageousness and followed it. Still haven’t read this thread. I have no idea as to your detailed opinion as regards the whole matter. My first hand impression is that you might favor the full frontal approach a little more than subtlety, but then again I haven’t the foggiest of what I am talking about right now, so ignore whatever I said and accept my apologies for barging into the party brandishing cutlasses and tenterhooks as we corsairs are want to.

Carry on.

Sparc

23

Sparc No problem. Actually, my position is confused. I see arguments for taking out Saddam but don’t know about the ensuing peace, probabilities, or effects of the war.

He El Jeffe did kind of go after Europe generally. Personally I like Europe. The politics can get rather confusing though.

It would still be breaking news if France became a strategic nuclear counterweight to the United States. Especially for Iraq. I don’t think Russia will go to the mat for Saddam either. Generally, though, you are right. If France, the UK, Russia, China, and whoever else you named all said, “Hey U.S., don’t do that or we will nuke you.”

Ah, only a stupid President would not listen.

24

Just for the record:

I am sure the U.S. could have fought that war all by themselves. Other’s helped as much as they could though, both in that war and in the peace missions all around the world.

25

"Amateurs study tactics and professionals study logistics”.

— Field Marshall Erwin Rommel

For modern warfare. Jet fuel and gasoline are probably the two most important needs. With large supplies of both at the location of the war a modern military cannot function.

Now, imagine prosecuting a war when the only secure supply of fuel is 4000 miles away. AND that supply is only available if the civilian population endures high prices and possibly rationing. That’s the scenario we are faced with if we try to wage war without at least logistical support from the rest of the world.

If the Arabs aren’t willing to sell us fuel in support of the war, as a practical matter, we end up with nukes, and a small amount of air/ground forces able to function.

Make no mistake, the Oil producing nations hold our war machine hostage. Unless we are willing to first invade one of them and capture their oil production and refining capacity intact, we cannot prosecute a war halfway arround the world without their help.

26

Um, that should be “Without* large supplies of both…”. <sigh>

27

Tejota There is a strategic petroleum reserve. Of course mid air refueling takes care of many logistical problems. I do not think the US would be facing the dire situation faced by the Afrika Corps.

Rationing is a possibility.

Interesting you mention invading if the OP and ECs cut off oil production. Hmmm. That would make a good thread by itself.

28

Beagle, as Tejota mentioned, you need the fuel at the location of the war.

I actually believe that the US could just about manage without the support of all but one ‘staging’ nation. However, just to achieve that would necessarily involve more a longer war or more casualties (since you won’t me able to amass the same amount of firepower without allied forces or allied bases to launch from) and a vast economic cost to the US, since it would require mass mobilisation of reserves and National Guard and potentially pressing civilian freight vessels and aircraft into military use.

29

The strategic petroleum reserve would certainly help. But tapping it would be an overtly political act that Bush may not be willing to risk. One day we may NEED that reserve to defend our country, if he were to use that now to go adventuring, that cost him.

Also, it isn’t a gas tank, most of it is crude oil. and it certainly isn’t anywhere near where it will be needed.

Riight :rolleyes: On a small scale, maybe. Certainly it allows for limited sorties directly from the USA to anywhere else. But to run a whole invasion that way? You have no idea what you are talking about. In terms of total fuel cosumption, mid-air refueling makes the problem worse. Not to mention that we simply don’t have enough hardware to do it that way.

30

I know this is true. Or at least conventional wisdom says it is.

What I don’t understand is: why? Forget the rest of the world; exactly who is it here at home that is just so incredibly het up about Saddam that going after him (unprovoked, a distinctly un-American thing to do), is gonna be the thing that will guarantee their vote for George? With whom would such an action resonate, I wonder, aside from people who are already locked down tight for George to begin with? Who are these hoardes of fence-riders that would come down firmly on his side because of this, but just might vote for Gore otherwise? Is there a single example Doper among us who fits this description?

Someone help me here, because it makes no sense to me… :confused: :confused:

31

Beagle said:

I can’t find anywhere in that Frontline article that says Iraq was behind the 93 bomb.

They interview a (hawkish) journalist called Laurie Mylroie who believes that Iraq were responsible.

She thinks Iraq were behind the bomb because Ramzi Yousef (the guy who carried out the bombing) entered America using an Iraqi passport. And also because the Kuwaiti interior ministry had a file on him that had apparently been altered by the Iraqis when they invaded.

This is the evidence against Iraq.

It’s interesting to be sure but it’s not conclusive. Yousef fled the country after the bombing and was caught. But he fled to Pakistan, not Iraq. He’s now serving time in a US penitentiary and he’s never admitted to any Iraqi involvement.

Also, apart from the two pieces of evidence mentioned above, there’s no other evidence that Iraq were involved.

32

As for the logistics of invasion, unless someone goes into specifics about exactly which countries are allies and which assets are deployed speculation is useless.

You may be right about the 93 Trade Center bomb. I was simply pointing to potential justifications.

Sabah Khodada - Iraqi Captain - from the Frontline:

33

I hope it is clear that I respect all the allied nations for their support during the Gulf War. I said that the US might have been able to pull of the Gulf War with “less” allied support precisely because there was so much allied support.

The UK flew a number of dangerous attack sorties to just name one nation. The list provided earlier shows just why what ifs are so difficult. There were quite a few nations in the original coalition.

I think if all the oil producing countries cut off production that the US might react a number of different ways. However, absent some proof that this is likely to happen, this thread should not be limited by that consideration.

34

Wow, I go away for the weekend, and return to find my post dragged into another thread, and myself systematically bludgeoned with the flame-stick. It’s unfortunate that people would choose to attack me, rather than simply attack my argument, but if that’s the kind of game we play here, I can dig it.

Hmm, so much to cover… where shall I start? I guess I’ll go in my favorite order, “No Particular”:

Necessity of allied support in the war on Iraq:

You’ll note I never said we could cavalierly beat the tar out of Iraq single handedly. I said we could do it reasonably with the help of a few key partners, or we could do it entirely alone, but would probably not, because of the casualties involved. Does anybody really not believe that if we pooled all our resources, we could not win a war against Iraq, even without help? C’mon, our military power is an order of magnitude or two beyond theirs. We have more super carriers than the rest of the world combined. It would be messy, but we could do it, especially given all the anti-Saddam sentiment in Iraq.
General anti-Europe sentiment:

I’m not a big fan of Europe. I don’t mind Europeans, but Europe, in general, bugs me. They (entering gross generaization mode) perceive Americans as gun-toting ignorant philistines who have no regard for anyone other than themselves. They are largely socialistic and opposed to personal freedom in general. They love to micromanage, and frown upon those who don’t. They have an innate love of tyrants like Castro and Arafat, while painting Bush as a terrorist. Many parts of Europe are blatantly anti-Semitic. When Palestinians send suicide bombers to slaughter children, the European press calls them “freedom fighters”. When Israel launches an attack against military encampments that train suicide bombers, they are called “terrorists”. The best-selling book in France was, for awhile, about how the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the CIA because they wanted to go to war against Afghanistan, for crying out loud. The only country that ever really supports us consistently is the UK, which is why they escape the brunt of my ire. (gross generalization mode off)
US support to the UN:

As pointed out by London_Calling, the US, as of 1995, gave about as much as the top 3 European nations combined. Now, somewhat less. Doesn’t this qualify as a lot of money? Do you not think the UN would prefer to keep this money? How about the military support that the US donates? You think they wouldn’t mind us yanking all that support, too? They seemed awfully attached to that support when we threatened to yank it over the whole ICC matter.
Now, most of the above is rather off-topic, but I figured I would respond. I’ve tried to keep it civil here, so please, no more comments to the tune of calling me an idiot and condescendingly suggesting that I may learn something if only I pay close attention to the brilliance that permeates this message board. I have better things to do with my time than be insulted.
Jeff

35

Not to nitpick, but…

Maybe France could go it alone against Iraq. (Assuming the De Gaul doesn’t suffer another major glitch). Shipping would be real tight for them, though. They have great mobile forces, just not the mobility to move them (much). Gotta love the Force de Frappe’, which is what I believe they used to call their nuclear forces. Heh, frappe’.

Britian? Not anymore. Not enough sea- and air-lift to get and maintain enough troops in Iraq.

Russia? Not a chance. Russia is running low on things like 152mm HE rounds, much less the ‘good stuff’. Chechnya just won’t go away…

China? Less of a chance then Russia. No sealift to speak of, no strategic airlift, no naval aviation to speak of. Maybe in a decade or two, though.

India? Nice navy, but little strategic projection capability. Not enough resupply ships and whatnot. Dunno about their troop projection capability. I’ll have to read up about India…

36

Brutus…

You’re addressing posts that have been retracted from the debate at hand. Why don’t you just stick to the thread.

I think that it should be pretty obvious to even a slow reader that my rhetoric was not an attempt to enter into a debate as regards the potential strike force of said nations, but that my intent was to address other idiocy by point of equally tenuous positions.

While I am addressing you I might point out that the e in ‘frappe’ is silent and in this case not to be confused with the American ice coffee variety where the e carries emphasis. Force de Frappe litterally means ‘strike force’.

Carry on, (as before without me, if you would be so kind)

Sparc

37

Oh and ElJeffe,

Since I feel a certain responsibility for having misled you as regards the level of the debate in here:

I think you might want to scroll up and note that I did apologize to the readership as regards the attack I made on you, since the rules of the boards does not permit me to do so in here. In case the wording of my apology was not to be understood I’ll reiterate; had I realized that I was in the Great Debates forum I would not have insulted ElJeffe as I did.

You, like I did not in my previous reply to you might want to check yourself a little before you post unfounded opinion in this specific forum, especially when it is inflammatory, there is another forum called the BBQ Pit where you can play those games, if you feel like flaming the EU do it there, so that we, the citizens of this place you so dislike, and more sensible members get a fair chance to reply in a way the bitter bile you regurgitate on us deserves (that is if anyone has the energy, I just spent what I had, so it wont be me).

Now truly! Please carry on without me.

Sparc

38

Back to the OP; I believe that when and if anything tangible is discovered tying Iraq/Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, the gloves will come off and most of the Gulf War coalition will be on board one way or the other. I would bet that every agency available is pouring over records of all communication coming into or out of Iraq in the last few years, looking for that link that would justify the toppling of Saddam.

39

The problem with attacking Iraq is that the US will not get the same support they had last time. Certainly overtly at least, it will not get support from Saudi. It is highly unlikely to get support from Syria. It will definitely not get support from Iran. Given that Jordan currently depends on Iraqi oil, it would not get support from Jordan. Only Kuwait would help it in terms of a land-based attack.

This means that essentially it would have to be a sea-based attack. While this is possible (as military experts have assured me) it won’t be as straightforward as having the land presence around Iraq that they had last time.

The other issue is that bombing the hell out of a country is one thing, going in on the ground with a land invasion is quite another. In addition to this, the Iraqi people - however oppressed they may be perceived as - are not going to be welcoming to a load of US troops that they have already (been taught at least to) perceive as causing them severe hardship over the last decade.

In addition to this: what the world really needs is a rehabilitated Iraq. Baghdad used to be a major international trade centre, a leading city of the Middle East, on a par with Beirut, Cairo, etc. Iraq has a huge amount of oil, it and neighbouring countries are desperate for the sanctions to end, so they and it can at least return to some sort of normalcy with trade relations and foreign policy.

Continued sanctions, continued forced ostracism of Iraq, continued mutterings of military action, and certainly actual military action, will NOT rehabilitate Iraq or help its people in the short-to-medium term, or necessarily the long-term.

A central issue is Iraq’s possession of WMDs. As a senior source recently put it to me: “The last thing we want is Iraq lobbing a WMD into Tel Aviv.” Fair enough. I am hugely uneasy that certain countries - if not all countries - possess WMDs. But I also feel that as independent sovereign nations, they have as much right to as any other country.

Look at it this way from Iraq (or any other “rogue” nation’s perspective) - why should the US, the UK, Russia, European nations, be allowed to possess huge nuclear stockpiles, WMDs, armaments, but not them? Why should they be forced to abstain from something bigger nations do, just because those bigger nations say so?

Sanctions are one thing: if you don’t like a country’s policies, don’t trade with them. But invading them because they own something that you don’t agree with - particularly when you own those things yourself - that’s hypocrisy. Only if there is a serious, realistic likelihood that another nation is about to aggressively use those things to harm another nation is military action really justfied, IMO. And is this realistically speaking the case with Iraq?

40

Come on, nobody here is saying in an all out war between the US and Irak the US would not come out on top. That is not the point. The point is whether the US would piss off its allies and go to war with Irak in the face of world opposition. CAN it do it? Yes, of course it can. But why would the US do something so stupid? The price to pay would be huge. The monetary cost would be huge. The cost in bad relations would be huge. It is not in the interests of the US and it makes no sense. The US is not going to attack Irak unless it can first gather enough international support which it does not have right now.