On "pre-emptive defence"

Great Debates
1

Qualifier: I begin this topic, let me state that I am not an apologist for Saddam Hussein, I think he is a Bad Man[sup]TM[/sup], and I support regime change, preferably through assassination.

There is much talk of “pre-emptive defence”, as a defence against potential WMD, and a reason for overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

However, if we are to disregard the morality of Saddam’s regime, and accept that he is the leader of a sovereign state, and is clearly being threatened, then by the same token, wouldn’t a pre-pre-emptive strike by Iraq be, from his POV, just as legitimate?

The prospect of him using possible nukes and other nasties is extremely frightening, especially as the last Gulf War showed that he wasn’t scared to attack Israel.

2

And?

It might help if you suggested a topic for debate, jjimm. :wink:

How about:

Or is that too strong?

You could quote from the article I suppose, thusly:

Discuss.

Or you could try an analogy:

Seeing how wildly offensive these suggestions look, maybe I should have kept them to myself. I’ve a funny feeling I’m about to get flamed…

(BTW, IMHO the world would be a better place without Saddam, but I don’t know if the world will be a better place if the US just ups and invades Iraq)

3

OK, in the light of the above legitimate criticism and evident unpopularity of the OP, let me rephrase:

If you were Saddam, your too-little-too-late attempts at diplomacy had failed, you considered some kind of US/UK attack inevitable, what strategic tack might you take?

Suggestions:[ul][]Reinvade Kuwait[]Annex Jordan as a pathway to “liberate” the Palestinian people[]Lob all sorts of WMD at Israel[]Cause mayhem and death to the US or its allies via state-sponsored terrorism[/ul]Is it a good idea entirely to reject Iraq’s diplomatic forays?

4

Well, the practicalities enter into it here. There is no aggressive step which Saddam can take which would prevent a US attack. It could only make such an attack all the more likely. Hence it is not in Saddam’s interests openly to attack the US, or anyone else. After a US attack he might, of course, do any or all of these things, if he were still able.

Saddam’s best interest lies in not doing anything which might justify or provoke an attack. The weakness in Bush’s position at the moment is that he can get little or no international support for an attack on Iraq, and he is reluctant to attack unilaterally. Saddam wouldn’t want to do anything to change that. Even if there is going to be an attack, Saddam would prefer a unilateral US attack, undertaken without the support and against the advice of allies, than an attack enjoying any kind of broad support in the international community. So he will continue to do what he has been doing; trying to make it difficult for the US to get any kind of support for an attack.

But the question in the OP is a valid one. If the US has some reason to fear an attack from Iraq, Iraq has much, much more reason to fear an attack from the US. And if there is a right of pre-emptive defence, Iraq is just as entitled to have recourse to it as the US. The same is true for any two states who have a serious dispute with one another.

The truth is that recognising a general right of pre-emptive defence is not in the long-term interests of the US. Such a general right would obviously be highly destablising, and the US, having enormous interests outside its own borders, has more to lose than many other states from a more unstable international community.

5

The thing about “pre-emptive defence” that distresses me is that it seems to have a chance of being accepted by the US public as a legitimate principle in law. That frightens me because, whereas I am not an asshole, I do occasionally carry gun-shaped packages into the house. Now, I only come home with blood on me during deer season or after I fall off my motorcycle, but still… I don’t think I want my neighbors to buy into the concept.

6

The difficulty of dealing with nuclear proliferation was considered as early as 1940 in a science fiction story.

http://billdennis.net/heinlein/force.htm

7

Not really since he hasn’t got any nukes or any means to deliver them.

As I recall he just lobbed a couple of SCUDs at border villages. Not nice, to be sure, but hardly the stuff of nightmares.

Can’t see it for the following reasons:

  • his army was decimated in the Gulf War
  • sanctions have prevented him from updating his equipment, it’s all old and out of date
  • invading another country would require a huge military build up - I think we’d notice
  • he couldn’t invade another country because he doesn’t have the military capability to do it. He needs his army in Baghdad for when the Americans arrive not over at the Kuwaiti border being decimated by US warplanes again
  • he would need time to prepare an invasion but he doesn’t have time since the US intend to invade next spring
  • the no-fly zone would prevent him from using his planes to back up any aggressive actions
  • if he invaded another country then he would suddenly be all alone. The US and British would counter-attack immediately, the Europeans would side with the Americans and even the other Arab countries would come out in support of his removal. He’s living on borrowed time as it is without pissing off the Arabs (his only allies).

See above re invading another country.

He doesn’t have the missiles to do it right now. Maybe he will in 10 years time but he doesn’t now.

It’s just about possible that he may do this but unlikely. Iraqi intelligence may have provided assistance to terror groups in the past but they don’t tend to get directly involved in terror outside their own country. So they have no terror infrastructure - not to carry out international terror anyway.

And anyway, so what?

He may blow up the odd bomb here and there but that’s not gonna save his ass. Or even buy him any time, so I don’t see what he would accomplish.

If I were Saddam, in the situation he’s in right now, I would do what he’s doing.

Invite the weapons inspectors back in but set a load of pre-conditions. The UN will reject all the pre-conditions but this will give Saddam time. They’ll have to get into a big negotiating wrangle about the terms of entry of the Inspectors. It’ll take months.

The BBC reports today that he has said he’ll let the Inspectors in but only if the sanctions are removed first. This ain’t gonna happen and he knows it.

Eventually he’ll let them in but then he’ll impede them and harry them while they’re there. All this wrangling may just save his ass. If the Inspectors go back in then the US can’t invade.

If this plan doesn’t work and the US invades anyway then his last ditch plan will be to make it a really ugly war in Baghdad, with high casualties. His hope will be that the US will withdraw leaving him still clinging to power.

However I think there’s a pretty good chance that many Iraqi soldiers will desert once they realise which way the wind’s blowing. So taking Baghdad could turn out to be easier than expected, maybe another Kabul?

The main aim, as far as I’m concerned, is to get rid of the sanctions which have caused immense suffering to the Iraqi people.

But the sanctions won’t go until Saddam goes. So let’s just get it over with and get on with life.

8

Well, this is way off course of the OP but, I got a kick out of it when I heard it on the radio…The Christian Science Monitor says that remaining al-Qaeda and Taliban members, which might also include the elusive Osama, are amassing in northern Pakistan to attack the new Afghani government…Now, I don’t know exactly how “credible” this magazine is, but let’s say that these rouges do attack Afghanistan AND retake control of it, seeing as how our military will be strung all over god knows where. If that happened, what would that say for our foreign policy, or, more to the point, our government?..1)That we don’t know how to build a government, or 2)That we don’t know how to defend a country. Perhaps both?

That would make us the laughing stock and/or official “SHIT BAG” of the world, correct? Or are we already that? This is a trick by the Bush Administration…they’ve confused me to the point that I think that I’ve confused myself, and that they’ve had nothing to do with it! :eek: I think I may be onto something…

9

about my previous post…sorry I left a lot of ends unattached…or unstarted, depending on how you view it. I quoted Jojo because, i found that amusing. The United States is taking this “War on Terra” a bit lax. Sure, it’s been a push over until now, but, there’s gonna be a stumbling block on the road.
That’s where the magazine article comes in. Ol Dubya needs to take his time if he wants to do this right. And a good start is to not get “strung out”, and over tasked. I know it’s way off the OP but…I’m not all here, (mix of Tylenol Cold and…Tylenol Cold).

Now, to the OP, in a sense…Sadam is sitting in a different position that he was in Desert Storm. In Desert Storm, the world saw him as an agressor. Now, he looks like a legit President who is trying to avoid pain and suffering for his people. (What he does after the U.S. attacks him, if they do, will, more than likely, be the complete opposite of this.) Sadam’s playing with the big boys now, and over the past 12 years, he’s learned a good bit about their game. For him to attack now, or anytime, until some sort of provocation is clear (U.S toops mounting the Iraq border by the tens of thousands) would be, politically stupid, from an international standpoint. Sadam now has the world’s ear, not from the standpoint, so much, of a dictator, but, as I said, a legit President. And by him playing that card, he will hold in his hands a political weapon that could very well destroy this country’s credibility in the world. He could make look like what he used to be (and still is, IMHO)

10

Jojo, am I getting from your above post that the stated reasons for the desire for regime change are actually incorrect (some might say hypocritical)?

11

I would move millions of dollars of stolen oil money into a Swiss bank account (if I hadn’t already done so.) Then I would move out of Iraq.

I would choose to spend my retirement years in a pleasant location inside a country that hates America – a nation that would be honored to have me be a resident.

France. :stuck_out_tongue:

12

I heard on the news today what Saddam’s apparent strategic defence plan is going to be. The man is evil, but his plan is genius:

He is going to flood the residential areas of Iraq’s key cities with bunkered down troops. Why is this genius?

  • The Americans will not be able to attack the Iraqis from the air. Bombing residential areas to weaken the opposition? Not a chance.

  • No more desert easy pickings for the American tanks and war planes.

  • The Americans will be forced to send in waves of foot soldiers on the offensive against defensive, bunkered down Iraqi troops. Ask war historians what the usual ratio for casualty rates are for such battles.

How many returned body bags will the American public be able to take before they say ‘no more’?

13

I read that. Think Grozny or Stalingrad. And even in the event of a defeat, we’re then talking urban guerilla tactics (aka terrorism). Nasty.

14

No worries, bindlestaff, principles in international affairs do not become principles in domestic law. After your neighbors shoot you, they’ll be convicted. :smiley:

micilin, “pre-emptive defense” has been around for a long, looooong time. “Centurion, if the German tribes finish that fort, they will be able to prevent us from shipping goods along the Rhine. Take your legion and destroy it.”
“But sir, we are at peace with the German tribes.”
“If they are allowed to finish the fort, we won’t be anymore.”
Pre-emption was the rationale for the invasion of Grenada - to prevent the completion of that runway. The list goes on.

Sua

15

Interesting choice of historical analogy there, Sua. :wink:

16

I hate to disagree with Sua (if indeed I am disagreeing with him) but it should be pointed out that it is not at all clear that there is a right of pre-emptive self-defence under international law. I don’t pretend to have researched this question fully, but the legal commentary which I have seen tends to suggest that there is no right to have recourse to measures of pre-emptive self-defence, except with the sanction of the UN Security Council.

Yes, pre-emptive self-defence has been around for a long time, but legal rights in this regard have been progressively limited over the last hundred years or so (and, as it happens, the US has played a significant role in this process).

The fact that the US (or any other state) has taken measures of pre-emptive self-defence in the past, or may do so in the future, doesn’t change the legal position.

17

I had a smartalec answer to this, jjimm beat me to it. But I’ll post it anyway:

What’s Latin for ‘pre-emptive defense’? Is it ‘incursio’ by any chance? :slight_smile:

OR

<Python>‘What have the Romans ever done for us?’ ‘Well, there always pre-emptive defense.’<Python>

The real worry I have about this is all the ‘little’ countries that’ll have an excuse to hop on the bandwagon and standard ‘pre-emptively defending’ the shit out of each other.

18

You recall wrong. I whole bunch of them landed near my house in Haifa (population: 250,000); the majority of the rest landed in Tel Aviv (population: 500,000) and Ramat Gan (population: 150,000). Hardly villages, and hardly near the border - unless you count the western coastline; but then it would be the border furthest away from Iraq.

And the reason they weren’t armed with nukes is that we bombed the crap out of their reactor - pre-emptively, in fact - 9 1/2 years earlier.

19

Well, Rwanda and Uganda managed to “pre-emptively” beat the crap out of Zaire a few years ago, without relying on the US to establish the principle for them. The Six-Day War was a pre-emptive war by Israel (Israel - rightfully, it turns out - believed Nasser was about to attack). Ditto Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia in 1978.

Pre-emption is just like any other causus belli. It can be used or misused.

For those who didn’t like my historical analogy, change it to the Athenians raiding Persian ports to destroy the Persians’ war fleet before it could launch an invasion of Greece. 'Cause the Athenians were the good guys. :wink:

Sua

20

I don’t really understand your question jjimm.

The stated reasons for getting rid of Maddas are:

  • he is trying to build WMD
  • if he manages to buy north korean long range missiles he will be able to use these WMD
  • he’ll have these missiles in 5-10 years time
  • if he has WMD and the capability to use them, he may attack Israel or even other Arab countries
  • he’s mad enough to do this

All this would mean long-term instability in the middle-east, which we don’t want, so better to get rid of him now while he’s weak.

Personally, I’m not completely convinced by the above arguments BUT I don’t care because, as far as I’m concerned, the sooner he’s gone the better because then we can remove the sanctions.

Whatever bogus reasons Bush conjures up to justify an invasion are fine by me.

I think it’s reasonably safe to invade Iraq because none of the muslims really like Saddam (not the Arab muslims nor any other muslims). I think they could live with a war to remove him as long as someone else is willing to do the hard work (ie America).

In fact, once Saddam is gone, Iraq will probably become more of a muslim country than it is now. Which is a good thing. They probably won’t become a fundamentalist style regime because Iraqi’s don’t follow that type of Islam and they are quite westernised.

I think Iran will become more laid back in time too. Did you know that everybody in Iran supports Manchester United and everybody thinks Pink Floyd are the coolest band ever? Seriously, Iranians are United and Floyd fanatics. There can’t be too much wrong with people who think like this.

At the moment Saddam relegates religion to a secondary position below his own importance. This annoys the muslims of the world no end. So I don’t think they’ll raise too much of an objection if the US decides to go in and get him.

And whoever the next guy to take charge is, he can’t be much worse surely.

I can see two problems. Firstly, minimising civilian casualties in Baghdad

Secondly, another Gulf war will inevitably lead to a rise in support for al Qaeda. The first Gulf war is what really galvanised Osama into action. If we remove Saddam then further terrorist attacks are inevitable.

But then further terrorist attacks are inevitable anyway so damned if you do and damned if you don’t. We just have to accept this fact and live with it. And remove Saddam anyway. Or remove the sanctions. It’s one or the other.

And I don’t think the western governments are gonna remove the sanctions while Saddam is there so Saddam has to be the one to go.