Given that Saddam is unlikely to be able to target the United States with whatever weapons he’s developing, but could easily hit Isreal, is could this be the real reason that we’re getting involved?
Suppose Isreal gave us notice that they were going to directly engage known bio/chemical/nuclear facilities in Iraq (as they’ve done in the past), could we have agreed to step in instead, knowing the consequences it would have for Isreal to attack a Muslim nation? (less for us, as we could work under the guise of the UN resolution ending the original Gulf War)
How would you feel if it turned out that Isreal, not the direct interests of the US, were behind the president’s desire to attack Iraq?
Me: Would not be happy if this was the scenerio, but otherwise agree that UN inspectors need to return and have full access in short time (presidential palaces and all), and that our military should be used if Iraq refuses, but believes that we’re not doing a good job at all making our case , as we’ve pretty much made it clear that we plan to attack no matter what.
Politically and diplomatically this whole situation could have been handled better. I don’t believe Saddam will agree to those terms, but at least we’d had more support from the rest of the world if we didn’t take such a unilateral stance. I believe France’s proposed resolution was indeed the best put forth.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the reasons behind such an assault are many and varied; when many reasons coincide, it becomes strategically beneficial to launch an assault.
I certainly think the proximity between Iraq and Israel is in the planning somewhere. Whether or not it is the most important reason amongst oil, strategic positioning of US bases, alleged terrorist support, and of course WMD. Incidentally, I believe WMD is fairly low down on the list of actual reasons: most military analysts I’ve seen in the media over here don’t think that Saddam is a clear and present danger to the US or other parts of the West. Nor does the CIA:
Two planes being hijacked and then being forced to slam into and destroy the WTC is the reason the US is going to war.
Well that’s a short answer but in the long term it might look like this:
Saddam might not attack America directly but once he has access to nuclear or other WMD, it does mean that terrorist groups will have MUCH easier access to them. Which after the attacks on Sept 11th is not the best situation to have.
I don’t think Saddam himself is crazy. I don’t think he will attack directly, or even give out Nuke material. But I do think he’s giving money to various terrorist groups, and that’s enough. One way or another, he must cease such activities.
Why do you think Saddam wouldn’t attack the U.S. directly? I think that’s a pretty naive assumption.
No, he probably wouldn’t use ICBMs or fancy technology, he – the terrorist groups he supports – would use a nuclear bomb in the trunk of a car. Or chemical or biological weapons that could easily be transported in a suitcase.
I don’t see that Israel (please note spelling) has anything to do with this. For the last three decades, the U.S. has sat back and said, naively, that no one would dare attack us directly. We’ve seen the tragic counter-example, and I think it would be folly for us to go back inside our turtleshell.
Saddam does have a track record of “We will bury you” rhetoric (which seems to be a concomitant of the “Arab Strongman” blustering persona; cf. perhaps the separate thread on why Arab armies don’t always prosper), but usually only in acute confrontations – I don’t perceive a baseline Iraqi goal of wanting to destroy or cripple the U.S.; certainly any question of territorial ambitions or conquest against U.S. is ludicrous given his military’s ineptitude, and (unlike say Iran in the old days or the USSR) it seems that his cynical and intermittent championing of Islam, while politically useful with the masses, doesn’t represent any ideology coherent and/or strong enough to support/justify trying to simply destroy America as the Great Satan. He seems a lot more like a regional tribal leader thug interested in consolidating his power base, thwarting his native and regional rivals, and advancing his self interest.
If self-interest is his motivation, it becomes necessary to distinguish among his various brutal/atrocious acts, past and potential, based on self interest. Killing the Kurds or using bioweapons against Iran thus might “make sense” in a way (i.e., elimination of nearby rival, with smallish chance of catastrophic blowback to Saddam) that atttacking American sovereignty/mainland would definitely not “make sense” to his self interest (because it would leave America standing and guarantee his oblivion). There’s always the “he’s a madman, and doesn’t know his self interest” theory – but overall the secular, privileged, probably-atheistic leader of a sovereign country simply seems to have a lot more to lose game theory wise than does a refugee camp resident or a disaffected student fundamentalist bent on martyrdom.
Except that Saddam has a history of doing reckless things. He had almost lost his country three times now because of doing things that a ‘sane’ person wouldn’t do.
First, he attacked Iran, a country much bigger and more powerful than his. He refused to sue for peace for 8 years. And when he was on the run, he did an incredibly stupid thing and gassed Iranian soldiers. He’s incredibly lucky that Iran didn’t go balls-to-the-wall with a ferver to destroy him after that.
Then he invaded Kuwait. That was extremely reckless, and a ‘sane’ leader would have known he wouldn’t get away with that. Even so, supposing that that decision wasn’t completely nuts, his subsequent actions certainly were. He continued to bluff against the coalition LONG after everyone knew that war was inevitable unless he withdrew from Kuwait. As a result, his army was destroyed or captured, Kuwait was liberated by force, and he’s just damned lucky the coalition didn’t decide to roll into Baghdad.
Then there’s his torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields. This was a mad act, not just because it threatened to be the trigger that caused the coalition to decide to depose him, but because of the environmental damage it did in Kuwait, which he hopes to recapture in the future. I have yet to hear a good reason for his order to torch the Kuwaiti oil fields, other than just pure insanity on his part.
Then there was his testing of chemical weapons on the Kurds, guaranteeing massive dissention in an area of the country that he didn’t really control.
Then there’s his continued pursuing of weapons of mass destruction, which has cost him over 180 billion dollars in lost oil revenues, and now threatens to topple his entire regime. Yet, he won’t give them up.
Sorry, but the “Sane Saddam” theory flies in the face of reality. Relying on him to stay peaceful out of self-interest is foolish.
So why does Saddam do this stuff? It’s not just that he’s insane, but erratic, reckless behaviour is a characteristic of dictators that rule through fear. What happens is that his ‘advisors’ become terrified of him (he reportedly killed one of his inner circle in front of the others once when the person gave him bad news), and so they become yes-men, coming up with justifications for Saddam’s every whim. If they know he wants to attack Kuwait, and he asks if America will stay out, they’ll come up with reasons to justify that.
Over time, such dictators become increasingly disconnected from their own people and from reality. Hitler is another example of that. So was Caucescu, and Milosevic. Such men are unstable, and cannot be relied on to act rationally.
Perhaps you should explain this point more clearly to the head of the CIA. From my perspective, the assumption the Saddam would, and could, attack the US directly is little short of alarmist.
Saddam doesn’t have nuclear weapons, remember? And transporting nuclear bombs in car trunks without detection ain’t quite as easy as smuggling yer cousins into the local drive-in, you know. I mean, how’s he going to get it here? Drive over the North Pole and down through Canada?
Please name chemical or biological weapons that are easily transported in suitcase, and why any number of other enemies of the US state (which are legion) have not transported said chemical or biological weapons already, if it is as easy as you say it is. Anyway, if you are concerned about that possibility, why would you want to provoke Hussein into exploiting it?
Well, that’s certainly one way to look at it. Another would be to consult the actual historical record, where we would find that, rather than ”sitting back naively,” the US has been actively involved in terrorist activities, actively supporting repressive and terrorist states, actively involved in shipping dual-use technology to rogue states (as well as components for chemical and biological weapons), gratuitously ignoring UN resolutions, actively exporting weapons, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The government has pursued these policies with the arrogant assurance that no one would dare to strike back, and now they got their ass kicked. Well, I agree with you that it was naive as well as arrogant.
Sam:
Here we go again.
*Iran was just emerging from a fundamentalist revolution, and its armed forces were severely weakened. During the 8 years he ”refused to sue for peace,” he had steady US military backing. The helicopters he used for delivering gas to the battlefield were gifts of the US government, purchases arranged and approved thanks in great part to our current Secretary of Defense.
I happen to agree with this, at least partially. Even if he is sane, his actions give one pause. But there is a huge distance between this insight and the claim that Saddam represents an immediate threat to American citizens on the US mainland, and therefore must be struck ”preemptively,” as the White House euphemistically phrases it.
As to the OP: I don’t think anyone really knows why Bush is so intent on Iraq right now. I think we can safely rule out the idea that he perceives Saddam to be a direct threat to US mainland security handily, however. Hell, even the head of his intelligence services doesn’t buy that argument, and in promoting it, Bush is ignoring his own intelligence services.
I also doubt that the US would attack Iraq as a means of heading off an Israeli offensive against Saddam; instead, they would simply order Sharon to back down.
London Calling suggested a couple of weeks ago that a shift has occurred in US-Saudi relations. It’s possible that US strategists have come to the conclusion that the US cannot continue to rely upon Saudi Arabia as an ally or primary source of oil; after all, the majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Given this, the US will need new oil sources in the future, and Iraq does happen to contain the world’s second largest oil reserves, with a lot of unexplored territory as well. These facts almost have to play some role in US strategy.
Then there are broader geopolitical considerations; Iraq doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, but it may soon, perhaps even by the end of the decade. That would significantly alter the power balance in the region, leveling the playing field against Israel, our favorite little proxy. In addition, if Iraq were to acquire such a weapon, it could potentially lead to a regional arms race. Iran would almost certainly feel forced to acquire nuclear capabilities as well, and then the US (and Western Europe, really) would be left facing two inimical nuclear states in the region.
Do these considerations give the US a moral/legal right to unilaterally attack Iraq?
Absolutely not.
Do they give suggest that the US, together with a coalition of UN allies, should remove Saddam from power?
Honestly, I dunno; but maybe, yes. Let’s not forget Saddam doesn’t really have a shiny happy human rights record either.
Whether he got them from Russia or from the planet Neptune does not make a difference to the fact that he actually used them. Remember guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.
Personally I think the American government of the time were idiots to give it to him.
I believe the Saudi connection makes most sense, in all of this.
Say there is an islamist revolution in Saudi-Arabia and the oil wells are nationalised. If this happens after Iraq has gotten hold of any good weaponry, it will virtually be impossible for the U.S. to conquer Iraq, to secure a new oil supply. The casualties would run too high then.
So it’s not so much that a WMD-armed Saddam would pose a threat to his neighbours as much as that he would pose a threat to a U.S. invasion.
This scenario would make an invasion reasonably urgent.
Given that Iraq’s oil has to be secured before a revolution in Saudi-Arabia and before Iraq has the capability to defend itself.
Why, though, if the Saudi regime were to teeter, would it not be easier for the US to go in to prop up the house of Saud, rather than an offensive on Iraq?
“Military advisers assisting the legitimate government” and all that?
I would like to make what I think is a minor point here; perhaps even a little bit of a hijack. If so, I apolgize.
But it’s been stated here and elsewhere that President Bush WANTS to attack Iraq. That would, of course, put him on an even footing with Saadam Hussein. He doesn’t WANT to attack Iraq…rightly or otherwise, he feels he MUST/SHOULD/in the interests of the US, HAS to.
Might be because in Saudi they would face a mad population, for sure. Remember Somalia? Not a good situation.
With Iraq they seem to think they can pull off being viewed as liberators. At the least they would have a lot of local volunteers, to work as informers or militia units to keep the Iraqi population under control. It might be harder to find people, loyal to the king, to fulfill that role in Saudi-Arabia.
I think the impetus to attack Iraq at this particular time is primarily the fact that the iron is hot, in terms of public opinion and the general state of government affairs. At this particular time, the country and government are pretty much geared up for war and attacking things, and as such, it is an opportune time for attacking anything on hand that needs to be attacked. So that even if the actual threat from Iraq is more of a long term one, and is not immediately pressing, in terms of getting the job done now might be the time.
jjimm, I understand that you feel differently. We will never KNOW for sure that President Bush is or isn’t rubbing his hands in glee over the prospect of killing a lot of Iraqis, but somehow, I just can’t fathom it.
I have a fiance that might be called back to service if war does break out, as well as two sons that probably would also be involved, so as a matter of personal interest, I would hope that we don’t go to war. But hell, even in WWII we didn’t WANT to go to war…we did so unwillingly, and only after we were attacked.
and NO, I’m NOT trying to draw a full parallel between Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center!
Considering the imminent war with Iraq there are two things I feel should be addressed,
should the US or shouldn’t the US make an aggressive move on Saddam?
If so, what are the real reasons we’re doing this and how do they relate to the case Bush is building?
1st, the case for NOT invading Iraq:
Ummm…International Law? Isn’t it frowned upon to invade a country without military provocation? If we rationalize our invasion with “We believe that now or at some future date Iraq will make hostile moves towards the US, therefore we are justified in initiating a military confrontation.” How can Saddam not say the exact same thing? Bush is shouting his intention to kick Saddam’s ass on every channel at the top of his lungs. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that Saddam very rationally feared for his country’s domestic safety and for his personal safety to boot. The fact that I think he’s a homicidal, wackjob doesn’t really make the argument less valid.
2nd, Okay, Saddam’s regime sucks for us but can we do any better? Can we find a leader that
[ul] Doesn’t hate us
Has credibility in Iraq
Is strong enough to maintain control of the country
Who is not a deluded egomaniacal psychopath[/ul]
As a generalization, US puppet governments are not always revered as harbingers of democracy and personal wealth. We’ve supported some real jerks cough Saddam cough before.
Next- The case FOR going to war:
Real reasons: Latro, I like the oil theory, we have fought wars over oil before…
We also may really believe that a government we help set up will be a good thing. It would give us a sure friend in the Middle East, a New Iraq may be a leader in settling issues between Israel and the Muslim world, and it will set an important example to everyone else “If you have something we want, act like jerks or threaten us in any way, we’ll get you, your country, and your little dog too.”
I have only a couple problems with the case Bush is making to the UN and Congress (which, btw, I believe the UN has a great case for busting up Iraq.) First off, if the the Gulf War is over, why the long hiatus??? I understand that we met the objective to oust Saddam from Kuwait, but he hasn’t kept to the terms of surrender. Why didn’t we act when we first realized that Saddam wouldn’t play nicely with others? What about the threat he poses is different now? Did we refrain from rolling into Baghdad then because we still felt a pang of “Thanks for doing our dirty work in Iran old pal?” There may be a reason in there somewhere, but it sounds like so much political posturing to make the case to bomb him to bits.
I also wonder whether attacking Iraq is very, very convenient to distract us from the crummy economy, and make us feel as if we’re making headway on the vast and amorphous ‘War on Terrorism.’ It’s hard to keep war fever going when most of the information is classified, and what we do know isn’t too cheerful. Giving us a target in Iraq lets us feel good that we’re bringing our vastly superior culture and government to the despotic hinterland, and we get some oil to boot. Nice concrete victories against defined enemies while intelligence agencies scramble around desperately trying to keep every loony with a pipe bomb out of the country.
My last thought is that MAYBE this is a super-clever ploy on W.'s part to win the support of liberals like myself?? Let me explain, in the beginning when I first heard Bush talk about “Evil Saddam” and our duty to kick his ass, he sounded like a half-cocked cowboy ready to go personally lasso the man. He made me very, very nervous as I watched advisor after advisor try to slow him down. Imagine my surprise and relief when the next news conference brought me Bush saying reasonable things about supporting reasonable use of force etc…I was so relieved to learn that we had not just nuked Iraq that I hardly cared that he was quietly sliding a bill aroung giving him the power to declare war. In that moment I probably would have signed it, given how impressed I was at his reasonableness. His strategy may be: Scare the crap out of the public at large with my half-baked hawkishness, and then they’ll accept anything that’s not downright crazy…
I dunno, but that’s all for now folks!