Iraq: what we're not being told (yet...)

Great Debates
1

First things first: I am very puzzled about what the exact motivations of the US/UK fpr the coming war on Iraq may be.

The way I see it, **oil cannot be a primary motivating factor: ** The West, for the time being, has all the oil it needs. And as a purely capitalistic money-making enterprise, will nabbing Iraq’s oil really be worth staging a huge war, followed by an indefinite occupation which is sure to take a high toll on American lives? Not to mention just how unpopular this war and subsequent occupation will make the US government worldwide.

**It’s not about votes: ** Bush Sr won the 1991 war, and lost the next presidential election anyway. And that was a war that was not followed by an indefinite occupation of a hostile territory.

**It’s not about removing an immediate regional security threat: ** of course, only the bleating ranks of slogan-chanting “anti-war” types are going to argue Saddam isn’t a threat to his neighbours. He funds/houses the MKO, he’s got more agents in Jordan than you could shake a stick at, he invaded Iran and Kuwait (and would do so again if he were able). Apparently he’s not too fond of Israel, either. But with poor state of Iraq’s armed forces (as far as offensive operations would be concerned, anyway) coupled with the presence of Western forces in the Gulf and a stronger Iran, Saddam is forced to behave himself. The Anglo-American alliance has successfully contained him since 1991, and although it’s a burden to keep a containment force perminently out there, it is far preferable in terms of risk and economic cost to actually invading Iraq and finishing Saddam for good.

**It’s not about removing a nasty dictator for purely moral reasons: ** both the US and UK have co-operated with Saddam in the past when it suited them, up to the point of aiding his quest for WMD (oops). And, of course, if the West was concerned with removing regimes simply because they were run by bastards, we’d be fighting wars against half the countries on Earth.

So, given the pointsabove (and feel free to challenge any of them), what is the motivation behind the war? I can think of only two possibilities at the moment: that the US has decided containment and sanctions are no longer sufficient for dealing with Saddam (in which case why exactly have they changed their minds and why the urgency to act so decisiively?) The second possibility is, linked to this, that our governments have some very scary intelligence on Saddam that has spurred them into action, intelligence along the lines of WMD and/or links to international terrorism. Currently, in the UK at least, it is considered laughable to even suggest links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, particularly as proof of such links is not forthcoming. Well, for goodness sake, if our governments possess such proof they’re not going to go round shouting about it for the obvious reasons asscoiated with intelligence gathering. What they would do would be to suddenly reveal the existence of these links on the commencement of war as a justification. Bearing in mind the Yanks are working to their own timetable here, so if (ie when) there are to be any great revelations about the Iraqi WMD programme or links to 9/11, it will be when it suits them to reveal that highly secret intelligence, and not a moment before.

By the way, I’ve just realized that by my outpuring of uncertainty I’ve contradicted by own username, but at least, I hope, I’ve opened up a good discusssion…

2

Good points, all. Picture this: Iraq gets a nuke, launches it at Tel Aviv, kills a couple million Israelis. Israel nukes back. Fallout everywhere. Syria and Egypt decide to attack Israel. So on, and so forth.

You can spin out any number of these hypotheticals with all sorts of permutations.

The 500 pound gorilla in the room which nobody sees is Israel. Remember, Saddam launched ballistic missiles at Israel. They swore that they would not tolerate that again. If you say, "let Israel fight Iraq, you are ignoring the liklihood that the war then escalates exponentially.

Dad was right, why the hell didn’t our tanks go to Baghdad and knock out Saddam’s regime the first time? All the justifications for stopping then seem weak now.

Same problem with North Korea being able to nuke Seoul, except that could actually happen tomorrow.

3

Well, the topic certainly seems to be getting air play, I will give you that. It’s late for me, so I will only hit on a couple of things, but, in general, I agree with your points: I think as well that there are other factors at work.

OK - let’s look at events since 9/11: we kicked out the Taliban easily enough, have a pretty much permanent presence in Afghanistan put some of the al-Qaieda types on the run; however, it has not been a smashing success. Afghanistan is heavily fragmented, and we have no hope of changing it anytime soon; the Karzai government barely controls the Kabul region, and many see him as a puppet. Taliban out, US/Karzai in, rest of the country same as it has been for the past 50 years. We have still suffered terrorist attacks in the name of al-Qaieda, so, though we may have them on the run, we are no closer to bin Laden then we were when we started. And the domestic economy, though showing occasional signs of life, refuses to kick off.

This has all resulted in a slide in approval ratings, and, though it may be shallow, the “cry for regime change” in Iraq can kind of keep the momentum up for a while. Maybe enough to keep everyone’s minds off the economy for a bit… Maybe a little war is what we need to jumpstart the economy, and get those ratings up, setting the incumbents up for another 4 years (as long as the Dems stay fragmented and confused). Anyhow, it’s a possible reason…

And what if Sharon has asked Bush to put pressure on Iraq, in order to get him back for those handouts to the Palestinian suicide bombers? I don’t think Bush is what anyone would call a strong leader: he is heavily influenced by his cabinet, and, as I think he considers himself both a moral and religious man, he would probably be greatly honored to assist Sharon and the Israelis in their cause. In the 70’s and 80’s, Israeli intelligence had the run of Iraq; when they took out the Osiraq reactor, Israel intelligence was on top of it’s game, at least re Iraq. These days there are a great many threats, and the budgets (and laws) aren’t what they used to be; our pressure on Iraq forces them to hide or suspend any nefarious activities they may actually be up to, and puts them under the spotlight for a while. Israel can much easier tend to the tasks at hand now, like those pesky Palestinians…

Just some ideas to go into the Lion’s Den; I’m sure they will be warmly received :wink:

Thanks

Greco

4

I don’t think it was cleared by the UN. Military force was authorized only to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

5

My take is that the situation in Iraq is not drastically different than it has been in the last decade. What has changed is how seriously the administration and the american people take threats post 9/11. It no longer seems so safe to ignore problems in far away places and assume that nothing much will ever come of them.

Regime change in Iraq has been our policy since Clinton. What has changed post 9/11 is our willingness to do something about it.

6

My best guess is that it’s about smallpox.

One of the very last outbreaks of smallpox occurred in Iraq only a few months before its biological weapons research began in earnest. As such, it probably has had access to smallpox for decades.

7

Cite. Oh, yeah, cite. Gotta have the ol’ citereeno, with the ol’ linkeroonie! Yessiree, Bob, cite.

What “we’re not being told” is what they haven’t had the time or the imagination to cook up. What we have been told turns out to be craporama, as witness the recent revelations about the Atomic Aluminum Tubes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35360-2003Jan23.html

which, you will recall, had no other possible use except for the production of nuclear arms, nope, no way, nukes only, proof positive. Next to the Report that Didn’t Exist, thats my favorite example of proof positive, as defined by the Bushistas.

These guys do for bullshit was Stonehenge does for rocks. More irrefutable proof positive is on the way. Bet on it. Here it is, the smoking gun, fingerprints and all, thats it, case closed, no futher discussion is needed, salute, sit down and shut up.

I am reluctant to be persuaded to war. But I flat refuse to be bullshited to war.

8

I agree to some extent. It is understandable that information sources need to be protected. However, that seems more and more like a dodge than anything else. IS there no way that the US couldn’t point inspectors to any smoking gun evidence? The bush administration keeps hinting that such evidence exists but sooner or later they need to put up or shut up.

That said Saddam Hussein is a proven sociopath. They really don’t come a lot worse than this guy. He’s easily in the same league with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Hussein has shown his willingness to be an aggressor (Iran and Kuwait). He is known to have sought weapons of mass destruction in the past. He is known to have used chemical warfare not only those he’s at war with (Iran) but his own people.

How long would you tolerate a known mass murderer lurking around your house? Would you be comfortable with pleas that he’s done his time and really no longer poses any threat? If you had the police come over and search him and they found no weapons on him today would you and your family then sleep easily?

That Saddam needs and deserves a B-52 unloading on his head is without doubt. The really scary part is what happens after that. Will it further encourage terrorists to go after the US? Will Iraq dissolve into civil war? Could that civil war spread to other countries (Turkey with the Kurds for instance)? Will the US have to leave an occupation force for the next few decades?

Out of the frying pan and into the fire is what I’m most worried about.

9

I would almost rather believe that Bush or even the Secret Inner Council of the Republican Central Committee had a nefarious plan of which this was a part than to believe what I do believe:

We’re invading Iraq on a fucking whim.

Our best hope may be that their attention span is so short that something distracts them and they forget all about it.

10

That’s the “weak” justification for stopping I was thinking of, although I advocated for it vociferously at the time.

However, I don’t remember any pressure from the UN to quit.

In fact, I remember journalists pointing out to Schwartzkopf that the Republican Guard elite armored units were escaping north to Basra. The logical thing to do was to chase the remaining Iraqi army, which was in a fighting retreat, and destroy it until it surrendered in total.

The “Highway of Death” that everyone thought was a slaughter was a fighting withdrawl with stolen booty.

As it turned out - although many thousands of vehicles were destroyed - only a few hundred Iraqi soldiers died on that road. Yet, the pictures and news coverage of that engagement are always mentioned when the reasons for ending the war are remembered by Bush I and the rest.

Once the army is out of the way Saddam has no friends. We were days from putting the Iraqi military in complete disarray.

Of course, after the Gulf War, Saddam suppresses the revolts we encouraged. Bush I lets Saddam use the very military we never truly defeated to slaughter those who sought to overthrow Saddam. So on and so forth with the UN inspections tap dancing until today.

11

The paragraph above suggests that if/when evidence of Iraq’s non-compliance comes forth, you will assume that it is trumped up. So you seem to posit the following: No evidence - your viewpoint is confirmed. Evidence - your viewpoint is confirmed.

12

Could this be part of 'what do do not know…?"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/24/sprj.irq.uday.reut/index.html

What are your thoughts on this article?

13

Why should we have any thoughts at all? Saddam bin Laden’s sons are both prime examples of the inheritability of psychosis, as seems true often enough of the sons of world leaders <cough!>.

14

<snort> LOL

15

—He is known to have used chemical warfare not only those he’s at war with (Iran) but his own people.—

Why does this fact stand out, in your opinion? While it was a morally decrepit exercise, it’s not the first time a dictator has unleased brutal force on revolutionaries and their home towns/villiages. I’m not sure I see a huge gap between chemical agents on Kurdish towns and using Agent Orange on the Vietnamese, or the Indonesians terrorizing the East Timorese populace. Lots of people, innocent people, end up dead either way, regardless of the method. Placed in the context of last few decades, Saddam’s act really doesn’t stand out much at all.

16

There’s been a real change in definition here, IMHO.

There’s a big difference between a policy of willingness to support a popular movement for Saddam’s overthrow, and a policy of going in and doing it yourself. These are not the same policies, even if the words sound alike.

17

Wow, a good thoughtful OP on Iraq :slight_smile:

It certainly could be that the Bush government knows something we don’t, and are just biding their time until the UN inspectors find what they know is there (but they aren’t telling us for security reasons).

Another explanation I have heard, FWIW, is that there really is no direct threat from Iraq, and the Bushies are indeed trying to find excuses to invade. Rather, the threat is from the Middle East as a whole.
Terrorism from Islamic-theocratic terrorists, and the possibilty of a big nasty regional war, which would involve the US through its regional allies Turkey, Jordan, Israel etc.
The terrorism is encouraged and funded by regional despots (esp. the Saud but also Hussein and others). The theory is that these regimes encourage anti-American feeling (even if they are nominal allies) because otherwise such hostilty would be directed against the real source of their people’s misery - those very regimes. America the Scapegoat.
So why Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia or Iran?
Iran is a theocracy and enemy to the US. But the Iranian people are constantly agitating for democracy. Given time they will join with us in the free world, on their own. A democracy next door in Iraq would accelerate the process.
Saudi Arabia is the centre of the nasty Wahabbi sect, the wellspring of Islamic-theocratic terrorism. But they are supposedly allies of the US and can’t simply be jumped on - it would look horrible. Put a democracy next door and lean on the Saud, and you might get changes without force.
To sum up this very long-winded post (sorry!) Iraq is the best candidate for focible conversion to democracy, in order to start the Middle East on the road to freedom. And who doesn’t want that ancient and civilized region free? It could be a great part of the world if it wasn’t being ass-fucked by petty squabbling tyrants.

18

Well, although Agent Orange was later shown to be a carcinogenic it was certainly not used as a chemical weapon against humans, it was a defoliant and used as such. And IIRC it was sprayed on both vietnamese and US troops, the objective was not to kill or maim people, just foilage. Vegans, back off!

19

I thought the reason we didn’t take out the current Iraqi government at the end of the war was to prevent the destabilization of the region. The thought was if the Iraqi government was removed Iraq would fragment and this would cause more problems. The decision was made that Saddam would be easier to control than a fragmented Iraq.

20

What interests me is why German, French, Chinese and Russian intelligence sources don’t have the same incriminating proof that the President of the U.S. says that American government has.

Is there even a possibility that Americans would go to war just because an Administration says, “Trust me; we need to be at war with this country” – especially when there is speculation about other questionable motives?

Do we really have enough oil for our needs now? Most service stations sell at least some foreign oil. I know that we have reserves that haven’t been tapped, but will that be sufficient? Will we end up drilling in the Alaskan wilderness again?

I know that these things have been said and said again, but they present suspicious circumstances.

  1. Both the President and the Vice President are oil men.

  2. Not only was there an assassination attempt on Bush’s father, but also Laura Bush would have been killed if the attempt had been successful.

  3. Bush hasn’t found Osama bin Laden; is Hussein a substitute?

  4. Our Allies, with the exception of the British PM, aren’t convinced yet.

  5. Presidents have not taken steps to oust Hussein previously.

  6. A majority of Americans believe that terrorist acts in the U.S. would increase if we go to war.

  7. The current Administration is eroding, or attempting to erode, the civil rights of American citizens.

  8. George Bush is not known for his command of foreign policy and international dynamics.

  9. We all know that there are people in this world who like being in battle and/or who feel that they can prove something by fighting.

  10. Bush has provided no proof for the necessity of war with Iraq.

I hate war under any circumstances. But I think that our Allies are the key. Why are so many refusing to support a war? I think that we need to pay close attention to their reasons.