Ok, I’m hoping this won’t turn into a Great Debate, because what I really want are facts. And I know I’m showing my status as an “ignorant American”, but I’ve learned to not necessarily trust what I read in the papers about the situation.
So, why is the current administration so intent on taking Saddam out of power?
I was a senior in high school during Desert Storm, and I’m not sure that I fully understood then, though I’m fairly certain that the official position was that we didn’t want Iraq taking over Kuwait. And the situation today is supposedly because Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that they’re not admitting to (why are we so sure that they have them? Did we sell these weapons to them or something?)
Basically, I’m looking for the facts of the situation. I’ve read that it’s because of oil, becuase we’re like the "playground bully"and all sorts of things. But it’s tough to sort out facts from all the various opinions out there.
Thanks.
Well, finding out the actual truth is impossible. No-one really knows why the people in power do the things they do except the people in power themselves. I could give you a whole plateful of opinions that I think are close to the truth, but in the end I cannot back them up with anything but more opinions.
Simplified version of the official story:
Iraq invaded Kuwait. Invasion isn’t a nice thing to do. USA helps out the Kuwaitis by repelling the Iraqis from their lands. Iraq surrenders, and one of the conditions the USA demands is that they do not manufacture or keep weapons of mass destruction. US government believes Iraq does have such weapons, and UN inspectors have been denied access. So now it’s brute force time unless the Iraqis let the UN inspectors do their job.
That’s basically it as far as facts go, and further than that we cannot get without resorting to opinion. It may be about oil, politics, machismo or that Yog-Sothoth is buried underneath Baghdad. No way for us to know.
This is a hard thread to answer without resorting to opinion. As mentioned a factual answer is tough to come by if not impossible. However, there are some facts that can be tossed out.
I’m reasonably certain the US did not sell weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to Iraq. Certainly not nuclear or biologic weapons and I seriously doubt chemical. The US did sell Iraq a pile of weapons while they were at war with Iran but it was all conventional stuff. Of course Iraq could presumably modify a warhead on a missile the US sold them to carry a chemical agent and use a plane or helicopter we sold them to deliver it but we did not directly sell them chemicals (it’s not like the stuff is hard to produce anyway).
As to today the US keeps insisting that Iraq has WMD. The US even claims to have evidence of this (along with Great Britain). UN inspectors are sent in and so far have found nothing more than a dozen or so missiles capable of carrying a chemical agent (but not filled with anything). The UN inspectors keep asking the US to produce the intelligence of these weapons so they can go get them but so far the US has refused to share saying that it would compromise intelligence sources.
>>>No-one really knows why the people in power do the things they do except the people in power themselves. <<<<<
Actually, I doubt George Bush has a clue to why he does half the things he does. He isn’t the power on the throne, or the power behind the throne, he is the throne. Thrones don’t think for themselves and that is pretty much Bush in a nutshell. I kinda suspect, that is also the case with most world leaders. Aside from a rare few TRUE leaders, there is a manipulator/puppeteer who is really in control. Which means that no one knows why people in power do what they, except for about 40% of people in power themselves. Puppeteers can be interest groups, big businesses, religous factions, or even sneaky stay in the shadow dictator types.
My impression of the war with Iraq is that The Bush administration, like the previous one, needs a boogey man to rattle sabers at whenever a problem arises domestically. The problem being, Bush makes enough enemies by opening his mouth without needing to villify an easy target. The Axis of Evil crap is what got NK all ticked off. Now we are looking at 2 simultaneous wars because Bush doesn’t have the sense not to name names. Does he really know what he is doing? I just pray he never has to deal with a “Bay of Pigs” situation.
I heard an interesting segment on NPR about a sort of news service called Debka ( http://debka.com/ ). Apparently they have quite a web of information resources, though they won’t cite any sources. The reporter/host said something to the effect that a typical reaction to some of their items is “That’s ridiculous and unbelievable,” until the same item gets reported in the mainstream press (with source attribution, I assume) a few weeks later.
As I recall, one Debka person being interviewed said that special forces from the U.S., Turkey, and Jordan working within Iraq have located the WMDs, and when the time is right, Bush will have them surround and isolate a location and call the U.N. inspectors to it, thus revealing the weapons’ existence to the world. Presumably, the invasion of Iraq will follow.
So assuming this is true, Iraq is in blatant defiance of U.N. directives and is capable of doing some horrendous stuff. My understanding is that most analysts of the Middle East have no reason to think that Saddam will refrain from using these weapons when it suits him.
A few weeks ago in Newsweek there was an article that made a compelling case for not allowing Iraq to proceed. If it gets its nukes operational, there would be major disruption of stability in the Middle East and the world as a whole. Whatever personal motives one might ascribe to Bush, it can be reasonably argued that the world’s best interests are served by stopping Iraq before its capabilities get even more devastating.
I’m sorry this isn’t demonstrably “the facts of the situation,” but as mentioned above, the facts are not in wide circulation at present. Nevertheless, I hope that this perspective helps to answer the OP.
I think the other half of the situation is “Why now?” Why not 10 years ago, 5 years ago, January 2001 when Bush assumed office, or ten years from now?
The answer to that would seem to be that 9/11 and the subsequent war on terror has given the U.S. the apparent momentum at home and abroad to push Saddam out of power now–something we’ve been wanting for some time, but didn’t have an immediate excuse for.
But while the U.S. has some momentum, it doesn’t have any sort of smoking gun (or at least, no more of a smoking gun than it’s had since the first UN inspectors were jerked around years ago–probably just cause enough for an invasion), and convincing the intl. community isn’t 100% smooth.
First: “What the resolution called for was not just Iraqi cooperation. It demanded that Iraq be disarmed, Iraq disarm itself. And the inspectors are supposed to verify or ascertain that disarmament. And in the absence of Iraq’s stepping up to its responsibilities and saying to the international community not only am I claiming I am free of weapons of mass destruction, I will give you all the evidence you need to prove that fact, and that’s what they have not done. And they have said they don’t have any weapons of mass destruction. If that is the truth, come forward to the evidence of that truth and lay it out before the world, lay it out before the inspectors to verify, and there will be no war. But Iraq has not taken that step.”
It seems to me that Hussein is being required by the US to “provide evidence” that he doesn’t have something. Now this might be possible but it seems to me that it will require more time than has been given since the UN sent inspectors back to Iraq.
Lehrer than asked if the differences between the US and some other Security Council members was because we interpret the available information differently or because we have private information not available to the others. Powell’s answer was, “I think it’s a combination of the two, Jim. I believe that we have more information and knowledge, much of it highly classified, that others do not have access to, or at least say they are not aware of, things that have gone on inside of Iraq, and I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to present this in the debate that’s coming up.” Powell spoke only of our having data not available to others and didn’t elaborate on the difference of the interpretation of data that is available to all.
I wonder why he can only “hope[s] that we’ll have the opportunity to present this …” in the upcoming debate. Why just “hope?” Why not just do it? I’m sure that one of the standard answers will be that to reveal it would “compromise sources.” However one of the uses of intelligence data seems to me to be that you can use it to convince others that you know what you are talking about.
If our official continue to bluster and refuse to provide the information they claim they have to prove their case, I don’t think there is much hope of knowing what this Iraq situation is all about.
First: “What the resolution called for was not just Iraqi cooperation. It demanded that Iraq be disarmed, Iraq disarm itself. And the inspectors are supposed to verify or ascertain that disarmament. And in the absence of Iraq’s stepping up to its responsibilities and saying to the international community not only am I claiming I am free of weapons of mass destruction, I will give you all the evidence you need to prove that fact, and that’s what they have not done. And they have said they don’t have any weapons of mass destruction. If that is the truth, come forward to the evidence of that truth and lay it out before the world, lay it out before the inspectors to verify, and there will be no war. But Iraq has not taken that step.”
It seems to me that Hussein is being required by the US to “provide evidence” that he doesn’t have something. Now this might be possible but it seems to me that it will require more time than has been given since the UN sent inspectors back to Iraq.
Lehrer than asked if the differences between the US and some other Security Council members was because we interpret the available information differently or because we have private information not available to the others. Powell’s answer was, “I think it’s a combination of the two, Jim. I believe that we have more information and knowledge, much of it highly classified, that others do not have access to, or at least say they are not aware of, things that have gone on inside of Iraq, and I hope that we’ll have the opportunity to present this in the debate that’s coming up.” Powell spoke only of our having data not available to others and didn’t elaborate on the difference of the interpretation of data that is available to all.
I wonder why he can only “hope that we’ll have the opportunity to present this …” in the upcoming debate. Why just “hope?” Why not just do it? I’m sure that one of the standard answers will be that to reveal it would “compromise sources.” However one of the uses of intelligence data seems to me to be that you can use it to convince others that you know what you are talking about.
If our official continue to bluster and refuse to provide the information they claim they have to prove their case, I don’t think there is much hope of knowing what this Iraq situation is all about.
There are some allegations that the US sold the ‘building blocks’ of WMD to Iraq in the 80s, in addition to all the conventional stuff. I leave you to make up your own minds.
Off topic, but didja notice that the page I linked to above has the scroll bar on the LEFT side? Isnt that neat? I bet Arabic sites have the same thing.
How much of a threat Saddam may be is disussed above, and this post is not addressing it.
An article in the San Francisco Chronicle, within the last six weeks, published some particulars: Iraq has the second greatest proven oil reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. They have existing contracts on their biggest fields with developers in several foreign countries (France, Russia, etc).
Two officials of the Iranian National Congress have both stated that if they attain power in Iraq, replacing Saddam, they will cancel those contracts and make them available to American developers.
When I hit regnad’s link, I got a page written in Hebrew. I believe he posted it just to illustrate Debka’s Israeli affiliation.
My interest in Debka has to do with my hearing that they publish information (usually without verification) that seems outlandish but later gets published in other media with verification. Their opinions are not at issue.
Its not like Saddam has to prove a negative. He doesn’t have to show he has nothing. He has to show the process of dismantling. Yes we know he has them as he used them on the Kurds. We also have various spy outlets that inform us that he is rebuilding. (spy plane/sat photos, defectors, ect)
After the last war of a great number of nations against Iraq the UN imposed sanctions. These are clearly not being lived up to and that last big report Iraq filed to ‘show’ their disarming activites are pretty incomplete and inaccruate.
The big questions is “Is Iraq harboring OBL and/or other terrorists?” and “Would Iraq provide WMD to terror organizations which could be used against the US or US interests?” If the answer is yes then the president has a duty ‘to protect’ the United States and do ‘something’ about it.
Of course people may disagree on what that something is and if wether or not this is a nice way to distract people from the failing economy/relaxing of laws protecting theenvironment/attacks on basic liberties that W seems to be doing.