Cookie-cutter logic is what the admin claims is being used by the folks who say that there’s a disconnect between the president’s policy towards Iraq, and his policy towards North Korea.
here -I’m sure there are better links, but you get the idea ?
If we can’t apply a standard of similar approach towards two members of the Axis of Evil, by what logic can we apply a like standard between Axis members, and non-members ?
But, Greco, reading your posts about how the Iraqi artillerymen would “know better” than to fire these things, the thought keeps popping up in my mind, “That’s assuming that they know what’s going on.” You’re assuming that the Iraqi artillerymen know all about their weapons in the way that (presumably) American artillerymen know all about their weapons, but I think that’s a pretty big assumption, ain’t it? How well trained are Iraqi artillerymen? Maybe they’re only trained just enough to know how to load, aim, and fire the things, and never mind about what’s in the canisters or whether that funny green corrosion is a Good Thing.
And you’re assuming that the Iraqi Powers That Be haven’t simply lied to their artillerymen, “No, no, don’t worry, even though it’s way past the expiration date and there’s rust all over it, it’ll be fine, the Americans fire these things all the time and nothing bad happens, would we lie to you?..”
Also, you’re assuming that the artillerymen would have a choice. Like JDeforrest said, there’s a very good hollow-pointed reason why they might go ahead and push the button.
Also, you’re assuming that the Iraqi Powers That Be don’t just send a bunch of grunts down to the missile silos with hand-written instructions, “Pull the green lever, then turn the black dial with numbers on it four clicks to the left, then push the red button.”
So, it seems like a lot of assumptions to be basing, “They’ll never fire them anyway” on.
See, I’m not even worried that THEY’LL use them. I’m worried they’ll give them to someone who will.
“See, I’m not even worried that THEY’LL use them. I’m worried they’ll give them to someone who will.”
This is an argument against invasion though. Saddam is much more likely to pass on his weapons to terrorists if he has nothing to lose and desperate. This point has been made repeatedly by Senator Carl Levin among others.
BTW the inspectors themselves seem to be moderately satisfied with Iraq according to latest reports.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq
They will reportedly give Iraq a “B grade” for their co-operation with inspectors and request more time. This will make it a lot more difficult for the Bush administration to push for a quick war.
Yet another completely unnecessary comment, december.
BTW let me address the main topic.
Sure it would be nice if Iraq behaved like South Africa or Khazakstan. The question is: is it worth going to war if they don’t? Is it the case that Iraq needs to get an A+ or else it’s war?
No. So long as inspectors get a moderate amount of co-operation war should be avoided. The fact is that you don’t need 100% co-operation from Iraq in order to destroy the bulk of its weapons facilities. This was clearly shown in the last round of inspections where inspectors managed to destroy huge quantities of weapons despite Iraqi obstruction. This is particularly the case for nuclear facilities which are the main source of worry.
Since the inspectors apparently think that Iraq’s co-operation has been satisfactory there is no justification for war as of now.
DDG, thanks for the input. Good points, as far as the medium range missiles are concerned, but not so accurate on the short range stuff. Like I said a few times, in other threads: in interviews after Desert Storm, we got a pretty good feel for the Iraqi soldiers, both regular and Guard. There are the Iraqi versions of the “political officer” so beloved by the Soviets in most frontline and combat support units, with the exception of Guard units. Artiillery units, especially rocket or chemical battalions, have a few upper-echelon political officers, some core professional officers and NCO’s, and the rest are indeed conscripts; the political officers and the senior NCO’s are pretty well-trained (many were trained on this equipment by Russians and Serbs initially), while the conscripts are often at the level of “push that big red button.” They have trained continuously with these weapons, though: the Iraqi military is well-known in the military community for staging field training exercise, and it is a pretty safe assumption to say that they are familiar with their equipment. In Desert Storm, most of these artillery units were not deployed: they stayed close to Baghdad, as the Arabs in general see them as primarily defensive weapons (in the Iran-Iraq war, they were considered to be essential against the massed attacks favored by the Iranians). Obviously, in the event of an invasion, our military will assume the worst, and plan that these batteries would be put into use, possibly with nerve agents. However, my opinion, from speaking with the average Iraqi that would have manned them, was that they knew well enough what they were, and were pretty skittish around anything they thought was chemical or biological in essence. Just an opinion…
Now, as far as the Scud-B’s, aka al-Hussein (talk about a Fruedian issue here - having ballistic missiles named for you) missiles: as I stated in the post, I can easily envision the launching of whatever they still have left that can fire. And most likely towards Israel, as well as Kuwait and the Saudi border, though I think my current home will be spared (unless he has a hell of a lot more of them than we think). As you can see, either I am a complete idiot (highly debatable, and I’m sure my wife would contribute massively), or feel that after the last war and the intervening time period, there really is a pretty good idea of what he has available. FWIW - I can’t see Saddam, no matter how desperate, unleashing chemical weapons on Kuwait, Saudi or the rest of the Gulf; I know some will immediately come up with the Kurd and Iranian examples, but in the latter case, the Iraqis were extremely outnumbered by their opposition - even then, it was mustard gas (though nasty, not highly fatal) that was the primary agent. Not a defense of his actions, God forbid, but simply a statement of what occured. Hey, I could be wrong; but then again, I am against going to war and finding out…
Thanks -
Greco
You’re welcome. Cool stuff. Horrifying, if you think about it, but cool.
