“Saddam has no WMDs, and if we attack him he wiil use them on us. Therefore, we shouldn’t attack him.” Something is wrong with that statement, but I can’t put my finger on it…
So who exactly is making that argument ?
Thanks for bumping the thread with that post , though, even if it lacks any appreciable intellectual content.
Well, if Saddam has WMDs to give to the terrorists, doesn’t that logically mean that he is in material breach of the UN resolutions, and therefore we should use force to disarm him?
Anyway, I imagine that a quiet transfer of WMDs to the terrorist would be much more difficult while the war is going on. And it still makes no sense. The whole point of transfering the weapons to terrorists is to create plausible deniablity. The terrorists use the weapons against America and Iraq is not implicated. But if the US is already invading Saddam has no reason to maintain deniability, he’d just use them against the US himself. Why give his precious nerve gas to some Islamic fanatics who can’t be controlled when he can just dump it on invading American soldiers?
“Well, if Saddam has WMDs to give to the terrorists, doesn’t that logically mean that he is in material breach of the UN resolutions, and therefore we should use force to disarm him?”
The debate is precisely whether this particular violation represents a serious enough national security threat to the US that it’s worth the serious costs of fighting a war. I think it’s a cost/benefit debate rather than a legalistic debate about UN resolutions. I don’t think too many people deny that Saddam is violating UN resolutions.
“The whole point of transfering the weapons to terrorists is to create plausible deniablity”
Well terrorists also have the ability to hit the American mainland which Saddam’s troops can’t. The point is that once he faces certain defeat, Saddam will hit back at the US in every way he can. He will try to use bio/chem weapons against US troops but those are likely to be well-protected. He will also supply some of his weapons to terrorists who can hit soft targets in the US itself. Before invasion he has good reasons to avoid giving WMD to terrorists but once he is invaded he has nothing to lose.
Why? Iraq has a spy network, surely? Why would Al Qaida be more able to smuggle a nuke into New York than Iraqi covert ops? I’m sure it is an order of magnitude easier for a state backed organization to get things like training, forged documents, weapons, money, safe houses, and transportation than a loose cell based network.
If Saddam can give the weapons to terrorists hoping that they will hit soft targets in the US, he can do the same thing himself. Obviously, if we invade Saddam might pull some sort of Samson move. But he’s going to have to move quickly, since he will only have a short time before his regime is decapitated.
“Why? Iraq has a spy network, surely?”
One possible answer is that Iraqi spies may be less likely to do suicide missions than terrorists which gives them less flexibility. But ultimately it doesn’t matter. Even if the WMD attacks are carried out by Iraqi spies, it’s the same point, the invasion will have provoked the very attacks it was meant to prevent. The point being that before invasion Saddam would likely be too scared of American retalation to initiate attacks but after invasion he has nothing to lose and would do his worst.
Yes, but after the invasion he’ll have his head on a pike outside the gates of Baghdad. After the invasion he’s dead. His survival depends on his remaining dictator of Iraq. Once he’s no longer dictator, he can’t do anything.
I was given to understand that Saddam Hussein is one of the more religiously moderate dictators in the region. Except for Israel, it’s the only country in the area, to my knowledge, where homosexuality is legal. Saddam’s deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, is a Christian. (cite) I recall reading an argument on these boards that Saddam has good reason to view Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to him, not a support.
Not that he isn’t a brutal dictator, but if it’s Islamic fundamentalist terrorism we’re worried about, shouldn’t we be more worried about the extremely non-moderate Islamic fundamentalists in power in Saudi Arabia? If for no other reason than religious alignment?
“Yes, but after the invasion he’ll have his head on a pike outside the gates of Baghdad”
But by that time he and his loyalists may have given the terrorists the WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of people. That would be a rather bad outcome for a war supposedly fought to prevent that eventuality especially when there no evidence that he will do such a thing in the absence of war.
So our choice then becomes containment, which relies on a permanent UN inspection regime and keeping a ton of mostly U.S. soldiers (along with the soldiers from the “coalition of the willing”) permanently poised to invade to ensure Saddam’s compliance. I think no matter what you think of war, we can all admit Saddam plays cat and mouse with the inspectors unless we’re there with the big stick.
I just don’t see how this works in the long-term.
How many Iraqis are going to have to die because of sanctions, which it will be necessary to continue? And how long will the U.S. play the bad guy for these deaths, which provides the terrorists and anti-US clerics great recruiting material?
Just how long are we going to have to keep our soldiers there constantly ready to invade, since the moment we begin standing down, Saddam can resume his WMD production? I don’t blame Blix, El Baradei and company; their job seems impossible unless it’s backed up by our willingness and ability to invade at a moment’s notice (but we’re never given the green light by the UNSC to invade).
If the status quo continues, I also imagine the pressure put on the hosting countries’ governments to evict our troops will rise dramatically (I’m thinking of our experience in Saudi Arabia). Those troops also become fodder for terrorist attacks (although, to be fair, I’m sure some terrorists will take their shots at them in Iraq after the main war is over ).
Plus, if the status quo continues, the same dysfunctional political culture will remain throughout the Middle East. Without the liberation of Iraq, the U.S. lacks the political capital to force the Israelis and Palestinians to the table, which remains the biggest problem of all. Without the Gulf War victory as well as the downfall of the Soviet Union, it seems pretty apparent to me Yassir Arafat would never have accepted the anti-PLO conditions set down by the U.S. to begin peace talks at Madrid in 1991.
I really hate the idea of launching a war, but I think the alternative may be worse. I hope that doesn’t make me a warmonger.
Well this is getting into questions beyond those posed by the OP so I will just make a few comments.
I agree that containment has certain drawbacks but I don’t see how war really makes things better; it’s a case of jumping from the frying pan into the fire. In particular wrt. popular opinion in the Arab world. Sure they may not like American troops in Saudi Arabia but I suspect they are going to be even more angry about those troops invading an Arab country and then occupying it for possibly many years. Especially if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are killed as seems possible.
About the Arab-Israeli dispute Iraq is really not a player apart from publicity stunts like paying the families of suicide bombers. The idea that you need to invade Iraq to push forward the peace process strikes me as just an excuse for inaction. There are much more direct measures the Bush administration could take if it wanted to.
The argument about invasion creating an Arab democratic culture is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. What is the guarantee the US can successfully foster a democracy in Iraq? How successful has nation building been in Afghanistan? Arab public opinion is so suspicious and hostile to the US and to this war that it is much more likely to stimulate more extremism in the region especially if many civilians are killed.
First of all, let me say that I’m rather disappointed in general at my attempts to get a substantial number of replies on my key question about war (repeated in this post). I suppose that those who have commented before might be speaking for them, but there really hasn’t been much except from anti-war folks. As I said before, I’m trying not to be tempted to think they HAVE no reply…
Anyway, I have a more direct question: what IS the Bush Administration’s reasoning on this particular aspect of why they want to invade? This is a more factual question; a mere pointer will do, and I think it’s good for discussion. Thanks!
I don’t understand why so many people refuse to see or accept this. Destroying the Iraqi regime is not a one-for-one, tit-for-tat retaliation for 9/11. It is part of a global policy & plan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US by destroying the govts that support them. Starting with Hussein’s.
And you can argue that doing so will just invite more terrorist attacks and there is a bit of truth to that, in the short term. But not doing so is only achieving, “Peace in our time”. Its a form of appeasment. Its letting the terrorists’ threats dictate US policy, i.e. letting them win. And leaving ourselves vulnerable to another major attack.
Because you can also argue that invading Iraq & deposing Hussein will demonstrate to terrorist forces that we are willing & able to go to ‘their’ part of the world and destroy them (with or without the UN’s approval). To make it clear that, as they often say to us, they are not safe anywhere.
And I absolutely believe 9/11 warrants this. And after one or two more 9/11s so will everyone else, so why wait until they happen?
People have simply become complacent and ignorant about how the world works. It is my firm opinion that America was 100% blameless for 9/11 and that it made it painfully obvious that we cannot ignore or appease an enemy that is willing to commit such acts with no provocation or reason other then religious and economic hatred.
“It is part of a global policy & plan to prevent terrorist attacks on the US by destroying the govts that support them”
Except that there is very little evidence of Iraq offering significant support to anti-American terrorists particularly wrt. WMD. And every likelihood that they will offer such support if invaded. So this war, supposedly to prevent Iraq from passing WMD to terrorists, is likely to produce precisely that outcome. The word “counter-productive” doesn’t begin to describe such a policy.
Leaper,
Like I said don’t hold your breath for a detailed response from the hawks. As for the Bush administration I don’t believe they have discussed this issue in any detail; they just keeping repeating their talking points about how Saddam might pass WMD to terrorists.
LoL. Great way of putting everything in a nutshell.
Heres a continuation:
If we attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam, how is he going to give his theoretical WMD to these theoretical terrorist links?
If we dont attack Iraq, whose responsibility is it that he doesnt have any WMD and doesnt give them to terrorists?
All I am really asking is who do we point the blame at when these non existent terrorsts blow up a non verified WMD in some very real city. If any terrorist has a WMD, can we even say it did NOT come from Iraq?
I have already explained the fallacy in Lemur866’s post ; no one is making the argument that he puts in quotes.
“If we attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam, how is he going to give his theoretical WMD to these theoretical terrorist links?”
What do you think ; that one hour after the war begins the regime is going to be destroyed and that US troops are going to occupy all the weapons sites in country (whose location is currently unknown)?
Once they decide that defeat is imminent and they have nothing to lose, Saddam’s loyalists will have ample opportunity to grab whatever WMD they can and pass them to terrorists. Defeating the regime is not the same thing as controlling every weapons site or killing every Saddam loyalist. Even even a few loyalists get away they could supply terrorists with WMD that could kill tens or hundreds of thousands.
Lets take this scenario. We have Saddam loyalist with WMDs having orders to deseminate them to any terror links they can find. Possible Fallacies:
**Without Saddam in power, what would be the point and motivation to continue Saddams insanity? If the only reason you are loyal is a gun to your head or your families head, how loyal will you be when the gun is removed?
**Current speculation is attacks will occur in Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and negotiations are underway with Jordan. If this is true, the onset of war would pretty much meant imminent defeat for Iraq. How are they going to get their WMD out of Iraq? Thru Iran? Under theater wide satellite surveillance, seek and destroy patrols along the border and AWACs, predator and U-2 intelligence gatherers, not to mention special forces specifically looking for them? Jordan is very viable perhaps unless the US posts a border patrol unit along the border.
**And even if these WMDs do happen to get out, do you really think the US is just going to let that slide and not go after them wherever they might go and thus target the next terrorist threat?
1)This assumes that every single Iraqi is loyal to Saddam only out of compulsion. This is true of most of them but you only need a few hardcore loyalists to carry out the WMD. They could be his family members or tribal members and those so closely associated with his regime that they would probably die if they stayed in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that the WMD will probably fetch quite a lot of money when they give/sell it to terrorists. Thus there will be quite a few Iraqis who have good incentive to flee Iraq with WMD instead of staying and being killed or captured by the Americans.
2)The US has no means of stopping every single person/vehicle/plane from leaving Iraq during the war especially during the night. They may even walk it .Remember how many of the Taliban and probably OBL himself managed to slip away into Pakistan? And that was with a country co-operating with the US. Iraq has bordering countries like Syria and Iran who are unlikely to help the US much.
3)Huh? The US doesn’t really know who and where all the terrorists are otherwise it would just kill or capture them. It won’t really know where the Saddam loyalists have gone and to which terrorists they have given/sold the WMD. It will be like the Taliban and Al Qaeda successfully fleeing Afghanistan. How successful has the US been in capturing all of them?
I just wanted to take this time to thank Sam Stone and some of the other posters here for finally attempting to answer my question on why it’s an acceptable risk to go to war and increase the chance of terrorist attack, and why war supporters think that the initial CIA reports that Saddam was unlikely to give out his WMDs if not invaded is incorrect. I may or may not agree, but I’m glad to see that the question was at least finally addressed.
I highly encourage threads like this one and, of course, this, to continue, because I still think it’s an important question. Thanks again!
Well, you see- there is already strong evidence that Saddam does support terrorism. What the point is- that the terrorist he supports have at best a tenuous connection with Bin Laden. They SEEM to be the usual anti-Isreal terrorists. Thus, based upon what evidence Powell trotted out- getting rid of Saddam will not make US all that much safer. It will make the world a safer place, though.
Yes, Leaper- if you take the short view- the risk to US will increase if we attack. In the long run, if no nation dares to openly support terrorism, the risk will decrease greatly. Oh sure- it won’t go away- there will always be the lone nut who straps TNT to his body & blows up a schoolbus. But not more well organized, planned & funded attacks. In short- no more 9-11’s.