Given the Blair dossier, is there any alternative to attacking ASAP?

Great Debates
21

I believe the question boils down to does one nation have the right to dictate to another whether they can have WMD. The aruguments about it’s OK to have WMD if you’re a democracy doesn’t seem sufficient. Keep in mind the country that is being prohibited from amassing WMD does not participate in the other country’s elections.1

Keep in mind that US is the only nation to use nuclear weapons. And they did so against civilians. This is not meant to hijack the thread, but to show that whatever Saddam might do, has already been done by the US.

As far as Saddam’s bioligical and chemical weapons, those programs were started with US’s blessings. As reported in Newsweek, he was paid a personal visit by Mr. Rumsfeld during the war with Iran. At that time, the US representative found nothing disturbing with what he was doing.

Now, in all honesty, I believe that Saddam is a menace and his neighbors and his own people would be glad to see him gone. The real problem lies with US policies that allow creation of such monsters, that later on have to be dealt with innocent people dying on both sides.

22

Can I be the first to dub it; The Blair Bitch Project

  • FWIW, I don’t particularly believe Blair is Bush’s bitch (he does have a UK-centric policy agenda) but the name just rolls of the tongue so sweetly…sigh; Tabloid headline writing was obviously my one true vocation…

So far, I haven’t seen anything new or that is not hearsay or a construct of unsubstantiated speculation.

Combined with the discredited UNSCOM fiasco, it don’t mount to a whole hill o’ beans, sur.

So far, as expected: Blair cannot act outside the UN (not that he wants to) without endangering his leadership.

23

Well, that could be construed as an evasion, as I’m sure you are aware. While it is true that there has been a long standing animosity between ourselves and Saddam bin Laden, that rather buggers the question. If nothing has drasticly changed, and very recently, then there is nothing that warrants a drastic change in policy. Can I be any clearer?

The entire world, as symbolized by the UN, has been content to keep Iraq bottled up, as Iraq appears to be resigned to being bottled up. For years, as you point out. Let us call this the status quo.

What new development, information, or scrying by entrails, exists such that this status quo must be abandoned? And abandoned at once, as an emergency response to an urgently dangerous development.

If this dossier contains nothing immediatly provocative, we must assume that it works equally well to support a policy of containment, since it is precisely that policy that the US/Britain had been content with up until Sept. 12th.

And, of course, the timing stinks. It stinks to high heaven of political opportunism, and as the stench chokes the birds from the sky, we have nothing but the bald faced assurance of Our Churchill that he is quite oblivious, never gave a moments thought to the impending election.

The elephant squats in the living room, farting loudly amid our attempts at polite conversation.

But if this utterly disgusting conjecture is untrue, then there must be some other source of urgency, some compelling reason for immediate action.

And that would be what, exactly?

24

Werewolf of London you have done us all a great disservice, albeit unintentionally. Your imagery of Tony “The Poodle” Blair as Fearless Leader’s “bitch” conjures up an image that would be horrendous even if one’s sexual orientation were different, what is sometimes referred to as the “Turkish Enema”. Please keep in mind that some of us more genteel types have little or no awareness of the traditions of the Royal Navy, as outlined by the authentic Churchill.

Had I witnessed such, I might gouge my eyes out, and thereby attain relief. As it is a mental imagery that you have, however inadvertently, foisted upon us such ameliorative surgery would be unavailing. All that remains is massive chemotherapy, which, as you may or may not know, can be quite expensive.

Please submit your solicitor’s address, so that we victims might forward the bill.

25

Morpheous:

It’s just not one nation, it’s the United Nations, and yes, I think they do.

First the UN has the right to dictate such a stricture in this case, because it would be merely enforcing an agreement that IRAQ made in exchange for a cessation of hostilities.

Secondly, I think it would be fair to say that Iraq under its current leadership can be considered an aggressor nation, and therefore its posession of WMD can be construed as more dangerous than a country without such aggressive tendencies.

WMD can exist as defense/deterrent, or as an offensive instrument. Under the current regime, Iraq would seem to fall into the latter category. It is therefore in the best interests of the world at large that Iraq not be allowed to posess such weapons.
Collounsbury:

I’ll take a shot at what merit I see in December’s stance.

My conclusions are pretty straightforward:

  1. I think there is a good to excellent chance that Bush/Blairs current concerns are founded on very specific intelligence information.

This suffers the bane of all intelligence information. How do you use it. Ideally we would like to continue to use the sources and methods we have in place (and perhaps not get the people providing it killed.) Therefore we cannot directly reveal these sources and methods, or react on them directly. We have to build a case otherwise.

  1. The case otherwise is fairly compelling. That Iraq has defied UN resolutions, and is accumulating weapons proscribed by the UN seems so likely as to be a near certainty. Without specific information though it is hard to create urgency about this ongoing threat, or to determine what level that threat should be rated.

  2. Saddam operating on his own is an inherently bad thing.

  3. The UN resolutions need to be upheld.

  4. Therefore some kind of action against Iraq is mandatory. What form should this take?

I don’t think Saddam will capitulate without some pretty serious saber rattling, so I’m all in favor of that. We have to mean it though, and I think we do. So far so good.

I think accumulating WMD in quantity, and developing a nuclear program with a committed and empowered UN weapons inspection team would be a very difficult task for Saddam. I beleive such an effort provides a very reasonable possibility of keeping Saddam in check and also alerting us if those efforts are failing and more stringent action is needed, and represents the best possible course.

  1. I think an invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein from power would be mandatory if we were unable to secure effective and unfettered inspections. This would be necessary both for the greater good of the world, and to protect the binding nature of UN resolutions.

  2. If the UN loses its teeth in this respect, and allows Saddam unfettered reign without inspections, then the US would be justified in acting alone, but only then.

26

I question that structure of reasoning. If we’re in imminent danger now, we should deal with that danger. Period. However, let’s go with your structure for the sake of argument.

Content?? The UN has be so discontented that they have passed resolution after resolution and invoked severe sanctions to try to compel Iraq’s compliance.

One bit of new information is the fact that the current approach has failed. Another bit is the many details about the extent of Saddam’s WMD arsenal and delivery vehicles.

The urgent development that he may be close to having nuclear weapons and medium range rockets. Another urgent developpment that he could deploy some chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes.

I can’t speak for Britain, but the US Congress in 1998 passed resolutions giving Clinton broad powers to attack Iraq. Congress was anything but content.

There are Congressional elections every two years. The attack is best done in winter, because of the protective garments our soldiers wear. It takes many months to build up political support domestically and internationally, to get enough weapons, to deploy men and materiel, and to actually fight the war. No matter when the war began, critics could find a way to impugn the timing.

In any even, the main point ought to be world security, not politics.

27

“In theory, inspections are still in effect today, since the Security Council never voted to discontinue them”
“In theory” is irrelevant. The bottom line is that when the inspectors were actually on the ground they succeeded in destroying huge amounts of weapons despite obstruction. There is a successful track record there unlike with “regime change”

"“Iraq has…learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and has already begun to conceal sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors.” "
In the absence of actual inspections it is pure speculation as to how much Iraq will be able to hide from inspectors. Besides the inspectors too may have learnt from their previous experience and be able to do a better job. Why not put inspectors back and see how effective they and how much co-operation they receive? The military option is always available later.

“Also note that Saddam’s offer of “unlimited” inspection had many limits”
That is his first offer given a lot sooner than many people expected. Keep up the diplomatic pressure and he will give more concessions. And let me repeat that the so-called flawed inspection regime of the past destroyed a huge number of weapons.

And finally what no one explains is why they are so sure that invasion and “regime change” will work better than even the “flawed” inspection regime of the past. Is there any track record of an occupying military force enforcing regime change and then ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction successfully? Obviously not and there are huge uncertainties and problems which I have repeated many times.

Hawks try to impose the most absurd double-standards where they demand certainty and perfection from the solution they don’t want without imposing anything remotely like the same standards on the solution they want.

The bottom line is that “regime change” is vastly more expensive and more uncertain than inspections as a method of getting rid of Iraqi weapons.

28

Elucidator – Then I shall refrain from sharing another unsuitable analogy of the Toxic Twins (oops, there’s another!) : Seaman Stains and the Cabin Boy.

London ‘Shiver me timbers’ Calling

29

December, in all respect, I think that that kind of post is simply a strawman attack. I don’t think anyone here is “wishing away a nuke”. From what I can see the disagreement isn’t over whether or not there is a danger. The disagreement is over what is the best response to that danger. Some people feel that an attack will only make things worse and that inspections, although imperfect, are the lesser evil. Others feel that inspections are useless and that a direct military assault is the only answer.

We’re not debating whether or not there is a danger. The debate is about what should be done about it.

30

Did the inspectors destroy 1% of Saddam’s WMDs? 50%? 99% Who knows?

All we know is that some weapons were destroyed. We don’t know how many were not destroyed. I don’t call that success.

You have raised an important question, CP. What is meant by “inspections.” Here are two extremes:

*1. Saddam commits to destroy all WMDs and to stop pursuing them. If the inspectors find even a single WMD or if they’re fettered in any way, the inspections will be deemed to have shown Iraq out of compliance, All inspectors will leave and an attack will begin.

  1. The inspectors destroy whatever WMDs they can find. They accept the fact that Iraq is continuing to build WMDs and to evade inspection. *

It appears that you support version #2. However, other posters may support different versions of inspection.

Yes, I agee with this point. But, the risk of not acting may be the destruction of Athens and Istambul. Or, the risk of Iraq dominating much of the middle east.

How many times does one apply this argument. We have put inspectors in and they were not effective enough. It’s already “later.” In other words, we’ve already given Saddam many chances to comply with his agreements. Why should he get one more chance? And, after than should he get yet another chance? At some point in time, we must decided that he has had enough chances.

Why do you call it his first offer? His first offer, made in 1991, was to disarm his WMDs and to permit appropriate inspections.

“Diplomatic pressure” Ha! Threat of war, more like.

It worked in Germany and Japan after WW II.

I think different standards are appropriate, because
– If Iraq develops nuclear bombs, the entire world changes irrevocably.
– If we overthrow Saddam’s dreadful government, we’ve done a good deed for the world, even if Saddam wasn’t that close to having a nuclear arsenal.

Which aspect of regime change do you find uncertain? Do you doubt that we’ll win? Do you doubt that the US and UN can install a better government than the current one? Do you doubt that a friendly regime in Iraq could find the WMDs?

31

Continue to apply political pressure on Iraq to adhere to the several UN resolutions already in effect. Invade if, and only if, Saddam actually uses WMD, and then only with the agreement of key UN members. While not the most palatable option for the hawkish among us, it is IMO the most morally defensible option and the one least likely to harm long-term relations between the US and other countries.

The Blair document provides insufficient information to convince me that Iraq is currently planning a pre-emptive strike using WMD against the US, Israel or any country neigboring Iraq. Show me with hard evidence that such is the case, and I will consider modifying my stance.

32

To whom is Sadaam a threat, anyway? To us, via terrorism, I’d say. To Israel. To England? I sort of doubt it. There are strange relationships between Iran and Iraq. Would Iran like to be rid of him? What about other middle eastern nations? It would seem that in order for the UN to go along with this scheme, they would end up protecting the US and Israel from Sadaam. That is, unless the individual countries feel threatened as well. A unilateral strike right now, I believe, has the potential to turn much of the world formally and overtly against the US/Israel alliance.

33

There are also huge uncertainties if Saddam is left in power with a flawed weapons inspections process that may allow him to posses nukes covertly before his regime falls apart. If I am left with trusting the fate of Iraq to Saddam or the U.S., I’ll pick the U.S. anyday.

34

If we were in imminent danger, you would have a point.

We are not and you do not.

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated on multiple occasions that he wants to be around to exercise his power.

  • He only attacked Iran after the imams had destroyed their own officer corps and while the U.S. was actively treating Iran as an enemy.
  • He only attacked Kuwait after he interpreted a statement from a member of the U.S. State Department as a declaration that we did not care what he did in the Persian Gulf and would leave him alone.
  • He played lots of brinkmanship with the UNSCOM groups, but always pulled back before he crossed a line that would have brought physical retaliation.

There is nothing in the Blair dossier that indicates that he has suddenly developed a suicide wish.
The U.S. has already demonstrated that it will invade any country that it believes has attacked or supported an attack. Bush is already trying to whip us up into a war frenzy. The use by Iraq of WMD or any terrorist use of WMD in a way that can be remotely construed as having originated from Iraq would guarantee that the U.S. would invade Iraq and destroy him.

He is having so much fun rattling Bush’s chain, that he has no need to actually seek his own destruction.

(And if you want to claim that he is “insane” and will do “just anything,” you will need to provide some evidence that is better than our apparent need to demonize all of our enemies as insane, from George III, through Santa Ana, through the Kaiser, and so on.)

35

I’d just like to expand a bit on the Toothsome Twosome’s comment about “imminence” of threat. Exactly so!

Not only does Saddam bin Laden know that he will be squashed like a bug if he gets out of line, he has reason to suspect that he will be squashed anyway. Further, he has another worry. which is out of his control.

If, God forfend, some ghastly incident occurs against the US. Does anyone seriously doubt that Saddam will be blamed, given even the flimsiest of pretexts? He has to worry about America being attacked by someone utterly unconnected to him.

Worse, he has to worry that an enemy of his might deliberately cook up something to implicate him. How thoroughly would we examine such evidence, given how ready we were to believe conjectures about conspiritorial meetings and such?

Besides all that, there’s the chance that a US destroyer, cruising throught the international sands of the Godforsaken Desert, is attacked by what might very well have been possibly an Iraqi PT boat.

Why is he so quiet? Where’s the “Mother of All Battles” bluster of old?

Hell, the wonder is he doesn’t break down in sobs on TV.

36

I’m not at all sure that the extent and immediacy of any threat to US interests presented by Iraq isn’t an integral part of this debate. PM Blair’s revelations of the last day or so were advertised to provide a persuasive basis for lowering the boom on Sadam. Instead, what we got was the same old tired litany of past skullduggery and conjecture about future intent and capability. The primary difference between what the PM is saying now and what President Bush, the Vice-president and the Sec of Defense have been saying is that Mr. Blair managed to put his thoughts into Standard English instead of the language of Marvel Comic Books. I, for one, haven’t seen anything in the statements coming out of the US administration or out of London that compels me to the conclusion that a present and massive military action conducted without the overt support of the regional powers and in reliance on the strength of the US only is necessary to defend US interests from a clear and present danger presented by Iraq. While PM Blair has come closer to plain talking and clear reasoning than the Chicken Little stuff that passes for political debate in this country, it still falls well short of making a persuasive case that the US needs to go to war against Iraq to protect a vital American interest.

We have had all sorts of talk about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction with out much definition. I take it that WOMD is short hand for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That Iraq has some chemical weapons is likely if not established. After all, some quantity of chemical weapons was destroyed after the Gulf Campaign and in the four or five years since the UN Inspectors pulled out surely those stock piles have been replenished. Chemical weapons are not all that hard to produce. The knowledge necessary to produce them has been around since WWI. The raw materials necessary to produce chemical weapons is readily available. Chemical weapons, however, do not become a real threat until there is a way to deliver large quantities of the stuff over a large area. Reading between the lines of the PM’s report, Mr. Blair concedes that Iraq does not have the means to deliver a strategic quantity of chemical agent much beyond its own borders.

It is possible that Iraq has some biological capability. Again, once a starter supply is obtained a competent biology lab could produce a fair quantity of the stuff in a short time. Again the problem is putting a strategic amount of the stuff on a strategic target. I suppose that hoof and mouth bacillus are available in the Middle East—if nothing else it can be gotten in South America where the disease is chronic. Until Sadam can find a way to distribute a crippling quantity of the stuff in southern Wisconsin his possession of the stuff doesn’t mean much. That Iraq might someday knock out the American dairy industry does not strike me as a rational basis to go to war.

Iraq’s nuclear capability is even more questionable. Publicly available information is that Sadam is trying to develop an A-bomb but he is a long way from that objective. Again, there is a problem with delivery. Iraq’s ability to deliver an A-bomb is limited. I suppose that the fear is that if they ever get one it can be used defensively—that is, dropped on an invading army—is reasonable, but until such time as Sadam shows signs of using it on one of his neighbors it is just one more example of inevitable nuclear proliferation.

Sadam has got to know that the use of any of these weapons outside his borders will generate a reaction that will necessarily mean not only his destruction but that of his country as well. It is that realization that makes Sadam an annoyance, much like our friend December, rather than a threat.

There has been all sorts of tank about Iraq being a terrorist state. Unless this refers to a plot to assassinate President GHW Bush after the Gulf Campaign I am not sure what the factual basis for this is. I haven’t seen any thing that links Sadam with 9-11 and the stuff about OBL’s people hiding out in Iraq has been pretty vague. It seems unlikely that radical puritanical Islamic types would cozy up with the leader of a secular government that appears to care no more about piety than does our own, the axiom about the enemy of my enemy being my friend notwithstanding.

Unless we really want to take Sadam out on general principals there is no reason to mount an invasion and give up on the attempt to get inspectors back in to check his teeth and pull any that are too sharp for our comfort. If we are going to war because Sadam oppresses and mistreats his own people in order to maintain himself in power then we had better be prepared to mount a series of military campaigns pretty much all over the world.

There has been some talk about the need to be ready to reconstruct Iraq after any war. To the suggestion that this would not be a big problem because it was successfully done after WWII, let me say that the US and the allies were in Germany from 1945 until at least 1950 and that the US was propping up the economy of Western Europe until the mid 1960s. It was not until after the German economic miracle that German girls were immeasurably better off marrying a GI than trying to find a German husband. In Japan, Doug MacArthur was the Viceroy until the outbreak of the Korean War. Do we really want to set ourselves up for a five or six year military occupation government of Iraq accompanied by an Iraqi Marshall Plan? Or do we just turn the place over to Texaco?

37

I’m not at all sure that the extent and immediacy of any threat to US interests presented by Iraq isn’t an integral part of this debate. PM Blair’s revelations of the last day or so were advertised to provide a persuasive basis for lowering the boom on Sadam. Instead, what we got was the same old tired litany of past skullduggery and conjecture about future intent and capability. The primary difference between what the PM is saying now and what President Bush, the Vice-president and the Sec of Defense have been saying is that Mr. Blair managed to put his thoughts into Standard English instead of the language of Marvel Comic Books. I, for one, haven’t seen anything in the statements coming out of the US administration or out of London that compels me to the conclusion that a present and massive military action conducted without the overt support of the regional powers and in reliance on the strength of the US only is necessary to defend US interests from a clear and present danger presented by Iraq. While PM Blair has come closer to plain talking and clear reasoning than the Chicken Little stuff that passes for political debate in this country, it still falls well short of making a persuasive case that the US needs to go to war against Iraq to protect a vital American interest.

We have had all sorts of talk about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction with out much definition. I take it that WOMD is short hand for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. That Iraq has some chemical weapons is likely if not established. After all, some quantity of chemical weapons was destroyed after the Gulf Campaign and in the four or five years since the UN Inspectors pulled out surely those stock piles have been replenished. Chemical weapons are not all that hard to produce. The knowledge necessary to produce them has been around since WWI. The raw materials necessary to produce chemical weapons is readily available. Chemical weapons, however, do not become a real threat until there is a way to deliver large quantities of the stuff over a large area. Reading between the lines of the PM’s report, Mr. Blair concedes that Iraq does not have the means to deliver a strategic quantity of chemical agent much beyond its own borders.

It is possible that Iraq has some biological capability. Again, once a starter supply is obtained a competent biology lab could produce a fair quantity of the stuff in a short time. Again the problem is putting a strategic amount of the stuff on a strategic target. I suppose that hoof and mouth bacillus are available in the Middle East—if nothing else it can be gotten in South America where the disease is chronic. Until Sadam can find a way to distribute a crippling quantity of the stuff in southern Wisconsin his possession of the stuff doesn’t mean much. That Iraq might someday knock out the American dairy industry does not strike me as a rational basis to go to war.

Iraq’s nuclear capability is even more questionable. Publicly available information is that Sadam is trying to develop an A-bomb but he is a long way from that objective. Again, there is a problem with delivery. Iraq’s ability to deliver an A-bomb is limited. I suppose that the fear is that if they ever get one it can be used defensively—that is, dropped on an invading army—is reasonable, but until such time as Sadam shows signs of using it on one of his neighbors it is just one more example of inevitable nuclear proliferation.

Sadam has got to know that the use of any of these weapons outside his borders will generate a reaction that will necessarily mean not only his destruction but that of his country as well. It is that realization that makes Sadam an annoyance, much like our friend December, rather than a threat.

There has been all sorts of tank about Iraq being a terrorist state. Unless this refers to a plot to assassinate President GHW Bush after the Gulf Campaign I am not sure what the factual basis for this is. I haven’t seen any thing that links Sadam with 9-11 and the stuff about OBL’s people hiding out in Iraq has been pretty vague. It seems unlikely that radical puritanical Islamic types would cozy up with the leader of a secular government that appears to care no more about piety than does our own, the axiom about the enemy of my enemy being my friend notwithstanding.

Unless we really want to take Sadam out on general principals there is no reason to mount an invasion and give up on the attempt to get inspectors back in to check his teeth and pull any that are too sharp for our comfort. If we are going to war because Sadam oppresses and mistreats his own people in order to maintain himself in power then we had better be prepared to mount a series of military campaigns pretty much all over the world.

There has been some talk about the need to be ready to reconstruct Iraq after any war. To the suggestion that this would not be a big problem because it was successfully done after WWII, let me say that the US and the allies were in Germany from 1945 until at least 1950 and that the US was propping up the economy of Western Europe until the mid 1960s. It was not until after the German economic miracle that German girls were immeasurably better off marrying a GI than trying to find a German husband. In Japan, Doug MacArthur was the Viceroy until the outbreak of the Korean War. Do we really want to set ourselves up for a five or six year military occupation government of Iraq accompanied by an Iraqi Marshall Plan? Or do we just turn the place over to Texaco?

38

I’ve noticed a few people (on TV, in this thread and elsewhere) say that there is nothing “new” in the dossier. I don’t think this is quite right, there is some new information eg:

  • that Saddam has tried to buy uranium from Africa (I’ve heard people mention Russia and other countries but not Africa)

  • that “Iraq’s current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;” People have speculated about this but we didn’t know. The dossier appears to be saying that we now know this for sure as a result of recent intelligence.

  • Likewise, this statement: “Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles which he regards as being the basis for Iraq’s regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;” Saddam regards WMD (as opposed to conventional weapons) as the basis of Iraq’s regional power?. Again there’s been speculation but we didn’t know.

  • “Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles;” I don’t think we knew this before - that Iraq could hit Cyprus.

  • “The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so;”

  • that Iraq “is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;”

  • “Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.” One presumes the British govt have access to some specific information which is why they said this.

  • Under the section headed “Recent Intelligence” the dossier says:

This section specifically talks about what the Iraqi leadership have been discussing. It appears we may have a mole somewhere fairly high up.

I can’t see how they could say much more than this without endangering the mole.

And, again, this is “new” information. Lots of people have speculated about this kind of thing but we didn’t know. So this part is really confirming old speculation but that still counts as “new” information since it’s a new confirmation.

When you read the dossier you need to bear in mind that they have to be very careful what they say so they don’t compromise intelligence sources. So you need to read between the lines somewhat. You need to constantly remind yourself that this is the minimum they can afford to tell us.

If the dossier seems to stress something (eg by mentioning the same point on more than one occasion) you need to ask yourself why they are stressing this point. What are they trying to tell me?

What you make of all these “new” items is up to you. All I’m saying is that it’s not correct to say that the dossier contains nothing new.

39

“Did the inspectors destroy 1% of Saddam’s WMDs? 50%? 99% Who knows?”
We know that that most of his missiles were destroyed according to estimates and that most of his nuclear facililities were destroyed. I don’t know the exact percentage of his bio-chem weapons which were destroyed (a very substantial portion likely) but let me stress that there is no way of knowing this with regime change either.

Let me skip points to repeat the uncertainties of regime changes:
“Do you doubt that the US and UN can install a better government than the current one?”
In the long run,especially, yes. Are you telling me that the US can guranantee a friendly government indefinitely in the future? How? One serious possibility mentioned in today’s Kristoff column in the NYT is a radical Shia-dominated Iraqi government which teams up with Shia Iran and jointly develops nuclear weapons.
Even in the short run there is no guarantee that Shia groups will be friendly to the US after Saddam is gone.

“Do you doubt that a friendly regime in Iraq could find the WMDs?”
The question is how quickly a friendly regime is installed. In the meantime rogue elements will have ample opportunity to get their hands on weapons. In the immediate aftermath of the war what percentage of Iraqi weapons will US forces be able to capture when they don’t have a clue about their location? 10%? 50%? 90%? How do you know?

“But, the risk of not acting may be the destruction of Athens and Istambul. Or, the risk of Iraq dominating much of the middle east.”
Well the risks of a botched war may be terrorists getting the weapons to kill millions of Americans and using them to do so. And as I have argued a couple of times the risks that you identifiy are very small considering that any nuclear weapons Saddam makes will be crude, very few and with very unreliable delivery mechanisms. The idea that the moment Saddam acquires a couple of crude nukes he becomes master of the Middle East is grossly exaggerated.

“How many times does one apply this argument. We have put inspectors in and they were not effective enough”
That is merely your assertion. The facts suggest that when inspectors were actually on the ground they destroyed large quantities of weapons. That sounds pretty effective to me.

“It worked in Germany and Japan after WW II.”
Huh? Completely different countries and situations. Specifically in Iraq there is a very real threat of civil war which was not there in those countries. And there is a very real threat of functioning terrorists groups hunting for WMD which was not there at that time.

“I think different standards are appropriate, because
– If Iraq develops nuclear bombs, the entire world changes irrevocably”
The latter is an exaggeration for reasons I have given. Let me give another reason. Did the world change irrevocably when Pakistan, a dictatorship with a history of reckless aggression and sponsorship of terrorism obtained nuclear weapons? Not to mention other horrible aggressive dictatorships like Stalinist Soviet Union. and the PRC.
Anyway , once again, the downside of a botched invasion is equally, if not more, serious. Terrorists obtain bio-chem weapons and kill millions around the world with them. Saddam unleashes a small-pox epidemic which ends up killing millions around the world. Etc.

40

Hey december, if Israel isn’t doing anything about the Iraqi problem, even with the freedom of action they currently have, then the urgency for military action may just be at least a little overblown. Israel has been known for preempt strikes.