Ironically, an invasion may lead to precisely what we are trying to prevent: an attack with chemical or biological weapons, this time directed at the US mainland. Terrorists would provide the delivery mechanism.
Related question: How many US civilian and troop casualties (considered separately) are you willing to sustain to deliver regime change in Iraq?
This angle was considered here, sort of but I think we can discuss it again. Sorry if I missed other threads.
I was thinking of starting a thread on this myself. I think it’s the number 1 objection to war and one which no one has provided a remotely good answer to.
If America invades Iraq the regime will have little to lose and maximum incentive to retaliate without any restraint. One of the things it can do is give its weapons to terrorists. The US has no reliable way of preventing this.
Therefore one of the likely costs of war is a massive increase in the capabilities of Al-quada terrorists with respect to bio/chem weapons which will likely be used against American cities.
Sure Iraq will be disarmed but at the cost of terrorists having the capacity to kill tens of thousands of Americans or even more. Not a good trade-off.
Incidentally CIA said as much in briefing to Congress ie. Iraq was unlikely to work with terrorists unless first attacked by the US.
One of the most idiotic pro-war arguments is that it is needed to prevent Saddam from passing weapons to terrorists when clearly it will increase the chances of that happening.
I find it hard to believe that Saddam/Iraq is holding back terrorists efforts against the U.S. unless attacked by the US first. That sounds more like a scare tactic to me. Something to hold over our heads. Why would he hold back, especially after the outcome of the Gulf War?
The way I see it is, if we attack and succeed then Saddam wont have no way of helping terrorists organizations. As far as it increasing terrorist attacks…thats debatable. In any case they (the terrorists) are going to continue there efforts with or without an attack on Iraq…as demonstrated on 9/11.
Of course Goddam Hussein isn’t holding back terrorist attacks on the US. He has no influence on them, they hate him almost as much as they hate us! Al Queda most likely regards the entire US-Iraq thing with glee: two of its enemies, the Great Satan and a secular Islamic state at war. What could be better?
On the Islamic SDMB, moderate Islamics are being shouted down. Of course the US hates all Muslims! Only a fool would say otherwise! They hate the extreme Muslims, and go to war with secular Muslims. They send thier FBI to spy on all the mosques in the USA! Look, its right there in the NY Times. It’s perfectly clear that anybody who doesn’t hate the USA is a traitor to Allah!
And when the attacks begin, and they will, the same belligerant fools who insisted on this nonsense will point to the retaliation that they provoked and say “See! Told you so! Proof positive!”
As the poet said, the good are everywhere uncertain…
Err, has he committed terrorist attack against the US?
No.
Ergo, he is holding back.
What is there to believe??
There have been no threats, what are you talking about?
Maybe he is not such a mad suicidal maniac to the level your propaganda makes him out to be? Maybe.
Right, you are!
So what was the rationale for attacking Iraq again, instead of nations that actually do support terrorism?
‘Succeed’ as in securing all stocks in the first 2, 3 days of the attack?
No that is a sure outcome.
The US invading an Arab nation without provocation, will increase the number of muslims that are convinced you are ‘Satan incarnate’. Absolutely guaranteed… no debate.
There were suggestions that Operation Enduring Freedom would lead to more attacks on US civilians by Islamic terrorists. Thus far, this has not been the case and Al-Qaeda’s ability to strike has been diminished somewhat.
Whenever there is the threat of war there are numerous possible scenarios and the media (IMHO) tend to concentrate on the more extreme. This is probably in order to keep the circulation/ratings up.
I don’t really think that this invasion is much about making the world a safer place. The threat of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons seems overrated since the inspection teams have found scarcely anything of use. Again this is concentrating on the more extreme worst case scenario.
“I find it hard to believe that Saddam/Iraq is holding back terrorists efforts against the U.S. unless attacked by the US first”
On the contrary it makes a lot of sense from his pov. If he supplies terrorists with bio/chem weapons there is a good possibility that the US will find out and retaliate and destroy his regime. Of course if his regime is going to be destroyed anyway this deterrence no longer exists.
Secondly he is also afraid of the terrorists and unlikely to supply them with deadly weapons unless he is absolutely desparate. Of course a US invasion will do just that.
Let me note once again that this isn’t the personal opinion of Kristoff . It’s the CIA which has said that Saddam is unlikely to work with terrorists unless attacked by the US first.
It is the possibility of a biological/chemical attack on the US mainland that most frightens me about the upcoming war with Iraq. I do not know how hard it would be for Saddam to have planted cells in most major American cities that have ricin, anthrax, or some other deadly agent ready to go on a few moments notice.
If he did have these type of cells planted throughout the country, he could then wait to the last minute before an invasion and then announce that any invasion will result in the simultaneous unleashing of these agents. So as to forestall any invasion or else kill thousands of Americans.
I can only hope our homeland security would have prevented these cells from forming.
If I were Saddam and felt my demise was imminent I would say what you suggested regardless if I could back it up or not. See if Bush has the balls to call my bluff (betcha Bush would although in my view more from a cavalier attitude than any real gumption on his part).
Given that Homeland Security barely even exists I doubt they did anything to stop the cells from forming. You’ll have to hope the FBI/NSA was paying attention (after 9/11 and the missed signals there I would think they have gone through whatever they do know with a fine-tooth comb since then).
Or maybe its just an idle threat. My point was that it doesnt sound believeable, like Sadam is being kind enough to withhold any attacks out of the goodness of his heart… unless we attack. Bunk.
Thats a very big maybe. Have you read anything about this guy? He likes to watch torture tapes of his enemies for his own enjoyment.
You should have said “fanatical muslims”, which are really the problem here. I believe they think this no matter what as is, and nothing is going to change that. It’s not anything new, animosity goes back as far as the crusades. I’ll go into that deeper later if you want.
"My point was that it doesnt sound believeable, like Sadam is being kind enough to withhold any attacks out of the goodness of his heart… unless we attack. "
Um how many times does this have to be repeated? He hasn’t attacked because of deterrence. Once there is an invasion deterrence no longer exists so he will retaliate. This is what the CIA says.
Except, “fanatical muslims” aren’t the problem. It’s not like Sadaam is even devout. He’s an Arab nationalist and a socialist. Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister and Sadaam’s main spokesman to the rest of the world, is Christian. This invasion is going to piss off a lot of the Arab world, whether they’re “fanatic” or not, whether they’re Muslim or not. What’s going to piss them off is going to be what they see as American arrogance. “America tries to dictate to everyone. You do something America doesn’t like, you stand up to America, they send troops in to attack you.” is going to be the attitude.
CyberPundit, wont attacking now prevent him from carrying out any kind of retaliation? Should we just let him do whatever he wants out of fear of retaliation?
Captain Amazing, I was referring to mid-east terrorist who are all fianatical muslims.
But they’re not. Al Qaeda is a religious organization, and so is Hamas and a number of other groups, but the largest group most people think of when they think of middle east terrorism is the PLO, and that’s not religious, even though some members are. Two of the other Palestinian terrorist groups that were big in the '80s, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (I think that’s the name) were even founded by Christians.
“CyberPundit, wont attacking now prevent him from carrying out any kind of retaliation?”
No. No military attack can guarantee that Iraq won’t be able to transfer weapons to terrorists or activate possible cells who are already in the US.
“Should we just let him do whatever he wants out of fear of retaliation?”
No I am just arguing against a full-blown invasion. That’s not the same as allowing him to do “whatever he wants” any more than the US allowed the Soviets to do whatever they wanted.
I don’t think that Saddam was holding back any sort of attack. More likely he wasn’t attacking or using any WMD out of fear of U.S. retaliation. Think about it. He uses or clearly links himself to someone who uses WMD on american soil or targets outside U.S. and he finds himself without a leg to stand on. He’d have no support even amongst arab nations and the U.S. has all the support they need.
That is a bad situation for any power hungry madman who wants to remain in power. I think the point was that Saddam would only take that kind of action if he had nothing else to lose.