The same can be said for the “Bush is just witholding the hard evidence” argument. I’m amazed how many people buy into this. If the administration has credible evidence of continued WMD development (please, let’s not include chemical weapons here – there’s no real comparison with nuclear and biological) they should present it.
“Their protecting their sources” is a bogus argument, a smokescreen some people desperately want to believe. If the administration revealed a source, that person would immediately come under intense world scrutiny. If Saddam so much as laid a finger on him/her or family members, then here’s a casus belli even Germany and France would likely support.
If the Bush administration holds hard evidence about Saddam’s WMD programmes and/or lonks to al-Qaeda, or indeed anything else naughty, there are very simple and very imperative reasons for them not to reveal it (yet!)
First of all, if you reveal publically you have some item of intelligence, your enemy can work out just how and where you got that intelligence , and then your source of intelligence is cut off. A historical example would be when the British cracked the enigma codes, but still let the Germans attack shipping convoys as before… cos if the Germans attack a convoy and- what a coincidence!- half the Royal Navy are waiting for them, they realize the codes have been cracked and change them. Back to square one for Bletchley Park.
Bearing in mind the US has the most awesome intelligence apparatus in history, it is hardly impossible that they have double agents high up in the Iraqi government, or are listening in on Saddam’s telephone conversations, or have accurate satellite photos of WMD factories, or any number of other possibilities. But to make any of the information taken from these sources public would jeopardise these same sourcesof essential intelligence. “Of course Iraq is planning to give smallpox to al-Qaeda, our agent General al-Wotsit in Baghdad told us so in exchange for a good job in Saddam’s successor regime!” I doubt Bush will go on TV and say something like that.
The other reason is that even if Bush goes on TV and shows a genuine photograph of Saddam and bin Laden holding a disco in the middle of the largest WMD complex the world has ever seen, there are so many “anti-war” types who just don’t want to believe that nice Uncle Saddam needs ousting that it won’t make any difference to public opinion.
If my hypthesis about the amount of hard evidence currently under wraps is true, we should have this evidence revealed to us on the onset of the war, or perhaps even afterwards. The US will have to give proper justification eventually. One way or another.
Because
a) the US gave them the proof and they repudiate or ignore it
b) They werent entrusted with the prrof and how the US got it.
either way, only time will tell what this proof is and whether or not it actually justifies a war.
I really dont think that megalomania is allowable in the constitutional structures. The president may (or may not) have public support but Congress has the pursestrings to keep the president in check. It is not prudent to stop or start a war based on speculation. Someone, somewhere, sometime is gonna have to show their cards.
The US may and it may have to tap otherwised untapped resources like the alsakan widerness but the big question is does Europe or Asia have enuf oil resources?
**1. Both the President and the Vice President are oil men. **
oh puh-lease… so wildcatters in the white house are gonna target every oil producing nation in the middle east to gather up and monopolize the worlds oil? and couldnt the US achieve that very same goal by targeting north, central and south american oil resources?
**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. **
so now we have an oilman wildcat with mafia tendencies…
**3. Bush hasn’t found Osama bin Laden; is Hussein a substitute? **
seriously, I dont think so. Even if we do get rid of Saddam, I personally would like to get rid of OBL as well.
**4. Our Allies, with the exception of the British PM, aren’t convinced yet. **
as the news reports said last night, we have plenty of allies. Just not the french, germans, chinese or russians.
**5. Presidents have not taken steps to oust Hussein previously. **
uuuhh…that would be Clinton … :smack:
**6. A majority of Americans believe that terrorist acts in the U.S. would increase if we go to war. **
and a great majority believe in UFOs. Dont mean theyre real.
**7. The current Administration is eroding, or attempting to erode, the civil rights of American citizens. **
I’mm gonna have to ask for elaboration on that…
**8. George Bush is not known for his command of foreign policy and international dynamics. **
well, Reagan is sick, clinton didnt have it either, Bush’s dad did and everyone seems to take that as a negative. GWB is what we got. Deal with it.
**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. **
That would be Saddam.
**10. Bush has provided no proof for the necessity of war with Iraq. **
That doesnt mean he doesnt have it. Mayhaps if he did provide proof, that proof might cease to exist the day after.
We should pay equal attention on why there should be action taken.
Surely, that’s not a fact yet – you can’t dismiss it as bogus out of hand like that?
One thing where I disagree with many people, though, is that I think it is right and just in many circumstances for the government to be secretive. I don’t feel that the U.S. government owes the public even a drop of information as of now. Others’ MMV.
I don’t think things were done that way. The international outcry happened first when Iraq invaded Kuwait. I think it was Bush’s choice to have that coalition of countries work through the UN, and he could probably could have made a case to overthrow SH, but for what purpose. Saddam was sitting there defeated. This country was less supportive of military action in the ME then, than it is now. I don’t see the case for regime change (at that time) being better than it is currently.
I Know Lots, generally good points on the intel question, but would like to make a few observations:
Intelligence isn’t any good if you don’t do anything with it, and it is usually a very time-sensitive product; quick and efficient use of intelligence can make or break any initiative.
Keeping the above in mind, most intel agencies utilize a process called “sanitization”, whereby EEI’s (essential elements of information) can be processed and disseminated without links to the source; in your example of the Enigma machine and it’s decryption, you oversimplify the process - in many cases, it was not simply the compromise of the source that allowed those incidents, but the diversion of necessary resources. In the intel world, many factors have to be balanced; protection of the source is paramount, for obvious reasons, but not the only consideration.
Valuable intelligence is separated from the chaff by a process called corroboration; single sources rarely provide a decent level of confidence, unless it can be corroborated by another source. This may not be direct: in some cases, the corrobating source can actually be an “open” source that wasn’t properly scrutinized until the classified source offered information. In this case, sanitization can be quite simple, as the open source is pointed to; what lead us to a particular conclusion is what is left out of the report.
The administration would not have to be ham-handed in the release of sanitized information: once properly sorted, appropriately de-classified information could be provided to the inspectors, who could in turn direct their energies in a particular area. Consider these two points: that a) we combed Iraq from 1991 to 1998 looking for evidence of WMD and proscribed programs and weapons, and b) we currently overfly and observe Iraq with satellites and U2’s (and have done so since 1990) in plain sight. Wouldn’t that be blanket enough to cover for pretty much any scenario? Unless we know for a fact Saddam has a nuke in his closet, right next to his evil dictator uniform, and we have only one source (also known as un-corroborated), then we may have to wait for some time to gather data from other sources to both confirm the data and conceal the source. The UN has been given pretty much free reign, and the inspectors are using interviews, documents, conversations, previous information, open-source documentation, etc.; they have a lot of resources at their disposal, and are relying on them heavily. This is the perfect environment for the US to feed them sanitized info: it would literally be a practical impossibility to determine the source with any degree of accuracy, yet you have the information that would lead to the alleged WMD.
To find a source, the most common technique is pattern analysis; for example, Y always happens when X occurs. It is extremely difficult to determine source in specific or discrete instances; using the Enigma example, at the beginning you had a situation where certain information was being passed, with the chance of much more critical imormation coming in the future. As the rest of the intel apparatus had nothing, it would have been extremely easy to determine the discrete source (Enigma) had the agency acted on the intel given. In the current situation, there is a source rich environment, as stated above; it would take serious time and effort to conduct the needed analysis, and time is something the target really doesn’t have.
In short, there really is little reason to keep any evidence, hard or not, “under wraps”; considering the short timeframe that the administration wants, revelation of information to the inspection teams should happen immediately. Once they discover the hidden evidence, war could be pushed for and attained in quick succession; the Iraqis would not have the time or opportunity to determine the source, as the number of possibles is so high. And there attention would be directed to more immediate issues…
Of course, this is my opinion, but you might be able to tell I have some experience in the field. Why would we be holding back? Considering the “false positives” the administration has grabbed on to (the empty rockets, aluminum tubes) so far, they really need something at this point to shore up the sliding support for the war. Hidden intel is not going to do them any good; going public (to the inspectors, at least) would only serve to support their cause. Unless, of course, they don’t have anything…
One quick restatement of the quoted paragraph; looks like my fingers ran away while my brain was still moseying over the first sentence.
Properly stated, should be:
To find a source, the most common technique is pattern analysis; for example, Y always happens when X occurs. It is extremely difficult to determine source in specific or discrete instances; if one event occurs, but there were multiple possible sources of the information that precipitated that event, determining the real source is not possible (with any accuracy). You also have the issue of specific or discrete sources: using the Enigma example, in the initial seizure of the source, you had a situation where certain information of high confidence was being passed, with the chance of much more critical imormation coming in the future. As the rest of the intel apparatus had nothing comparable, it would have been extremely easy for the target to determine the discrete source (Enigma) had the agency acted on the intel given. In the current situation, there is a source rich environment, as stated above; it would take serious time and effort to conduct the needed analysis, and time is something the target really doesn’t have.
Perhaps I’m forgetting the time during the Clinton administration in which this country had troops in Iraq… Am I not remembering some grand opportunity we had from 1992-2000 and didn’t take?
The most likely option is the US and UK are worried that Iraq will give its WMD to a terrorist organisation.
Iraq has the technology to enrich uranium, provided by German physicists. Whether it currently has operational plant, that is for the weapons inspectors to decide.
Iraq has been given biological agents by the US. This has been told to me by a government source (fwiw) and see http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s690624.htm
Surely the war cant be about avoiding regional use of nukes as beagle said. If Iraq used a nuke everyone on the planet would kick their arse, without using nukes.
Saddam is a pshycopath, but there are many other pshycopaths ruling countries. The rule so far is don’t kill them unless they do something bad first. If this rule were broken it would set a terrible precedent. From the US being world police to world bully-boy.
So either:
US has intelligence that it does not want to share, about possible leakage of WMD to terrorists
US has no intelligence, but wants to attack just in case (mitigate risk) of leakage of WMD to terrorists, spurred on by recent events (S11) - Bush already has has one devistating attack against the US while in power, another would not go down well
Is there a WMD that could used by a terrorist that would justify this war? A nuke perhaps? But how could a terrorist could get a nuke into the US?
Why not? Get a list from the General of his family members and other close associates who might face retribution. Bush goes on TV and says “we know have hard evidence from General so-and-so that Saddam has a smallpox program. Oh yeah, if Saddam so much as touches the General or anyone on this list we have, he is toast.” Imply that we have people watching the General and his family right now. Imply that there is still a small chance Saddam can avoid war by cooperating from this point forward. With UN or special forces protection the General and his family are given the option to leave Iraq. Immediately dispatch the UN inspectors to the sites identified by the General.
This is not like dealing with the Nazis. We hold all the most powerful cards.
This is Orwellian. Governments can and do invent pretexts for war. Now your saying they don’t even need a pretext, they can invent a “postext” after the bombs start falling. Remember the Maine!
“The most likely option is the US and UK are worried that Iraq will give its WMD to a terrorist organisation.”
The problem with this argument is that an invasion makes it **more[/] likely that Iraq will work with terrorists organizations (after all the ruling regime will have to little to lose). The CIA said as much in a briefing to Congress a while back and the point has been made repeatedly by Senator Carl Levin. So this is an arguments against invasion.
BTW greco loco. You obviously know a lot about this issue. Thanks for your highly informative posts.
Oops sorry about that. Here is the post with the correct format.
“The most likely option is the US and UK are worried that Iraq will give its WMD to a terrorist organisation.”
The problem with this argument is that an invasion makes it more likely that Iraq will work with terrorists organizations (after all the ruling regime will have to little to lose). The CIA said as much in a briefing to Congress a while back and the point has been made repeatedly by Senator Carl Levin. So this is an arguments against invasion.
BTW greco loco. You obviously know a lot about this issue. Thanks for your highly informative posts.
Cyberpundit, thanks - anything to help enlighten, so long as I don’t have to hunt you guys down and kill you later… ;). And I agree with you on the likelihood of WMD going to terrorists; even a three-letter agency figured that out by themselves, so it goes to show there may be some hope yet for the more intelligent minds to prevail in the administration. However, since Powell has gone to the dark side (circling-the-wagons time, can’t be a good sign), I think that hope is about to be squashed like a small bug.
Ace_Face, you are obviously not familiar with Saddam’s state of mind or his methods of enforcing his will on his population (from the lowest Iraqi right up to the highest general or party member). First up: Saddam knows he’s finished and is just hoping to go down in a blaze of “glory”, taking as many Iraqis, Israelis, Kurds, Yanks, Kuwaitis, Scousers, dogs, cats, etc as possible down with him. He intends not just to martyr himself to history but his whole damn country too. Thus any hints from the US that he can avoid war will not be taken seriously, or even be welcome at this point. I can’t remember who said this, but it was aptly summed up in “we’re playing chicken with someone who has just thrown his steering wheel out of the window.”
As for “protecting” those in Iraq who are co-operating with the West, forget it. Saddam never, ever lets anything go. Those suspected of betraying him, guilty or not, have always faced a fate quite considerably worse than death… followed by death. I find it remarkable that anyone has ever had the courage/stupidity to betray him. I dread to think what has become of those Iraqis responsible for letting those chemical shells get found (and, indeed, their wives and children). If I were an Iraqi working for the Yanks, they had better maked damned sure they don’t screw up and get me found out (as in the failed anti-Saddam conspiracy of 1995).
This is particularly worrying when it comes to the crunch…
Saddam: Oh, the US Marines are approaching Baghdad. Looks like the game’s finally up. Time to fire all our Scuds at Israel.
Cronies: Great idea, boss!
That’s just childish. These empty warheads were never meant to be hidden. It seems to me that the issue weather Iraq is hiding something or not has gone from allegation to facts, at least in the minds of some people posting here.
Well spoken.
This reminds me of the bogus story 12 years ago about Iraqi soldiers breaking into a hospital and removing newborn babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.
While its not a pretext for war, it certainly helped sway the public to support the war. It later turned out that the whole story was bullshit from start to finish and made up to rally support from the American public. The whole lie was cooked up by a PR firm to “sell” the war.
Excuse me, hlujarn , are you are saying it is childish for me to be concerned about the stomach-churning things Saddam does to normal Iraqis when they displease him? OK…
And believe you me, the Iraqis are hiding something, ie their WMD programme. It seems to me that the same people who were (rightly) complaining ten years ago about the US and UK aiding Saddam’s chemical/biological weapons programme have now convinced themselves this programme does not, in fact, exist.
I Know Lots, you are making some pretty grandiose claims from over there in “South Yorkshire”; evidently you have some insight that others don’t. Where’s your proof that Saddam is any crazier now than he was before? What has he done recently to show that he
? There are many of Saddams Iraqi enemies that are scattered about that have not been chased down or attacked by his goon squads; I know people that were prominent members of his regime, who left due to disagreements with Saddam or his family members and inner circle, that live in neighboring countries. In fact, some of the Iraqi opposition currently still live in Iraq; granted, Saddam has a notably “Stalinesque” way of dealing with criticism, but the state of affairs is not what you claim it is, either. He has been extremely brutal in his treatment of those he feels oppose him and those who pose a risk to his regime, yes; but getting out of Iraq is not that difficult a proposition for those that want to. His actions have been the status quo in Iraq for more than 30 years: it is the price of politics in that country. To be a political survivor in Iraq means to play russion roulette on a daily basis.
As for the scientists, professionals, etc.: most of them have had plenty of opportunities to leave Iraq, with their families, had they so chosen. Before the Iran/Iraq war, it was relatively easy to travel in and out of the country; during and after, it became more difficult, but only by degrees. The reason many of this class of people stay in Iraq is because he makes it worth their while: while the normal Iraqi has a tough time making ends meet, this professional class has access to everything they want, with high salaries to boot. Sure, there’s the chance they might be the target of his ire at some point, but that’s a chance many are willing to take.
And, in pretty much any country, if you are found to be working for the enemy, you had better hope you don’t get found out, either; in many countries today besides Iraq, that pretty much guarantees you a death sentence. Even in the US, the charge of treason is still punishable by death; if you are positing that Saddam would be more extreme in his actions, I don’t think that is doubted by any, to include those that live there and choose to oppose him. However, if this is your basis for not releasing information that the US has to the international community, it is poor; if you read my earlier post to this thread, you can see that it would not be particularly difficult for the US to let loose information to the proper people without causing a threat to the source, especially in the current environment.
And your last statement is exactly why a war would be a bad idea; why push him into a corner if we don’t have to?
BTW - I just saw a link to a Slate article on a very similar topic; could it be they’re dopers?? :0
And one last comment: who exactly is saying that the Iraqis have no WMD whatsoever? I haven’t seen this anywhere, though it keeps popping up as an accusation here on the boards. I would like to see a cite, if possible.
OMG, elucidator’s is now being accused of being a bounder and a cad by using precisely the same argument that GwB’s hawks roll out. Don’t you just hate it when that happens … what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I think the closest we ever got to that was the statements of a couple of former (last beano) Inspectors with UNSCOM; obviously the somewhat fragile views of Scott Ritter but also another guy who’s name momentarily escapes me. IIRC, their general position was (before Clinton pulled them out on the eve of the eve of his impeachment hearing so he could bomb the fuck out of Saddam as a distraction);
Their work was 90-95% complete,
Saddam’s boys never got beyond 5% uranium enrichment (needs 80-90% for a bang), and all his kit had been destroyed by the Inspectors,
If he had chemical and bio material, it would have become unstable in the three years since they left unless he was able to produce more – these Inspectors seem to have found nothing new
There were still scuds.
These two guys from the UNSCOM mission ending in 1999 after 7 years on the ground in Iraq didn’t think Saddam had any WMD left………not 100% concrete but there likely to be the most informed views on the table.
Any search (here or on Google) for ‘Scott Ritter’ or UNSCOM etc will turn up lots.
FWIW, some on the board doubt the credibility of Ritter as a witness as his views have moved around but he’s been right so far. YMMV.