Sorry, that last paragraph should read “…or try to formulate some real arguments…”
Jeff
OK, for the purposes of this argument, let’s make some assumptions, most of which ISTM are reasonable:
- The Iraqi government is Saddam.
2)Saddam is a devious and sinister character who will deny all accusations, including stuff he has previously admitted. In other words, nothing he or his government says can be trusted.
3)Iraq had a chemical and biological arsenal in 1995(?) And there is no indication that any part of it has been destroyed. - Saddam has been trying to develop a nucular arsenal but hasn’t gotten the bomb yet.
- Saddam’s neighbors don’t like him very much but dislike even more the prospect of Iraq torn by civil war–there is too much of a chance that sort of conflict will spill over into the rest of the Gulf States. The Saudis much prefer the Devil they know to the Devil they don’t know.
- Iraq is sitting on a whole lot of light crude oil.
- Since 1991 it has been all Saddam could do to feed his own army and keep a lid on dissent. Other than giving lip service to Islamic unity and running off at the mouth about the evil West (all of which seems to be in the best Arab-Persian tradition, remember the Great Satan and the “Line of Death”) Iraq does not seem to have bothered its neighbors much.
Given all that, how does the existence of a Saddam run Iraq threaten or prejudice vital US national interests seriously enough that the US should resort to the ultimate argument of kings? If so, what are those vital national interests the protection of which requires the sacrifice of the nations blood and treasure?
If Saddam is not now a threat to vital national interests why are we so concerned with getting rid of him. Is it because we can? If it is because he is an irritant and no one can stop us, is that the way a great power with claims to moral and ethical primacy to go with its economic and military strength ought to be acting. Are we just marching up to the class loud mouth, inflating our chest and demanding “are you looking at me?”
Note that there is nothing here about a Saddam-Osama connection. If you want, add to the assumptions that some of Osama’s boys are in Iraq, probably up in the Kurdish North.
Add to my assumptions that if anyone is going to go after Saddam on the ground it better be done before the Persian summer with it’s 100 plus degree temperatures sets in. US troops with chemical protective gear just can’t operate in that sort of a climate. It’s hard enough stripped down to a tee-shirt and four canteens. Any large scale ground action has to be completed by April 1, or it must wait until November.
I’m a little unclear – which of my posts are you responding to?
In this thread at least, I don’t think I’ve expressed any opinion on the validity of a military response. I’ve taken issue with some DoC’s reasoning, but that isn’t the same thing.
I need some clarification from you if I am to respond.
The 64K question.
I think it is for a number of reasons: not control over but security of oil, the Gulf War cease fire terms, biological weapons, chemical weapons, a nuclear program, long-range missile program, drone / ROV program, brutality, torture, daddy, missiles at Israel, Kuwaiti Scorched Oil Policy, the super gun, etc.
I don’t think having many reasons for doing something is a bad thing.
…UN Security Council credibility, recurring fights in the “no-fly” zones, absurd persistent resistance to inspections, democracy, terrorism, make up for abandoning the anti-Saddam resistance after Gulf War I…
BBC organises the international reaction.
NYT
NYT: registration but I’ve not been spammed and its free. C’mon, you need the NYT.
Can’t really agree the Gulf War was about poll ratings, and as far as what happened afterwards, Bush I and his advisors actually never thought that Saddam would stay in power longer than a few months after the Gulf War ended. And it was Schwartzkopf who agreed to let the Iraqis utilize helicopter gunships afterwards - ostensibly to improve command and control in a country with poor infrastructure - gunships that were later used with great effect against the Kurds and Shiites. When President Bush found about the gunships he was mighty pissed and quite dismayed that we, the US, had already agreed to allow use of them under Schwartkopf’s authority.
Those gunships were one of the two most important things that allowed Saddam to put down rebellions and re-assert control. The other was the large amount of Republican Guard units that were left intact and in good fighting order as far as squashing rebels.
Anyone who wants an informative account of what went during the Gulf War would be best served to read The Generals’ War by Gordon and Trainor.
And as far as whether Powell’s evidence is enough? I’d say it should certainly help persuade people who were on the fence. I haven’t been all that against the war for awhile now because n my mind it’s either a quick war and occupation/re-building vs. continuing the sanctions (an option France and Germany are happy with). Still waiting to hear more analysis from my GQ post regarding the actual numbers, but I’ve always suspected that another short war will cause fewer civilian deaths than over a decade of sanctions.
I am curious as to when Diogenes and others think the use of force is justified and supportable. But I suppose I’ve been an intervention hawk for awhile. I’ll blame that on having read We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow We Will Die by Gourevitch - an excellent book about the Rwandan Genocide.
OIL
I think the reactions of the UN member states to Powell’s address is pretty much a death knell for the relevancy of the UN.
Powell: “Inspections are quite obviously not working. Saddam refuses to disarm.”
France and Germany, in eerie unison: “Great, inspections are proceeding wonderfully! Let’s triple the number of inspectors!”
These guys are living, breathing parody. It’d be hilarious if lives weren’t at stake, here.
Jeff
Agreed. It is as if they read prepared statements without reference to what Powell presented. Oh, wait, that is what they did.
After the evidence presented, I think anyone still in favor of not going to war is never going to see the light, especially you who think the whole thing was made up by the Bush admin.
But if you carefully look at it, what evidence do you have to form an opinion that Bush is fabricating it, and what evidence do you have that Sadam is telling the truth?
I guess there are actually two issues here. First, is Iraq in violation of UN security council mandates. I think most people would agree that yes Iraq has violated some of the resolutions. The degree and magnitute and reaction is where there is an issue.
Second, is there compelling evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction that constitute a credible threat?
Still no smoking gun. If the modified vehicle is as claimed, you would think that the best of US military surveilence could track one of them long enough to chopper in or drive in some weapons inspectors. Isn’t that what some of the weapons inspectors have been doing for the past few months or did I miss that part?
I’ll say it again, when the US can present closed door evidence to countries like Russia, Germany, France, China, etc and get just a couple of them to buy off on a credible threat, then you’ll have my support. You show me a surveilence photo and it really is meaningless, you show the Russian military and they will know.
As I understand the presentation, the chemical and biological weapons are being moved around in semis that appear outwardly normal. This is a great plan as the trucks can blend with the bustling Iraqi commercial trucking traffic. Are biological weapons a “credible threat”?
The problem with choppering in any inspectors is that enough guys on the ground with walkie talkies can foil the best ‘surprise’ raid by the inspectors. Electronic communications - speed of light / choppers - maybe 190 knots.
Issue one: WMD’s. In all probability, Saddam bin Laden is playing games about the WMD’s. Nonetheless, it is not up to the United States to decide which UN resolutions will or will not be enforced, not is it our perogative to determine how they will be enforced.
But we have already poisoned the well: GeeDubya’s belligerant insistence that America will do whatever she damn well pleases really screws up the issues.
No country really wants to piss off the USA, its a bad policy. So, if you believe that the USA is going to do it anyway, there is no advantage to be gained by opposing the US in the UN. The US will do it anyway, your voice will be ignored in terms of effect but remembered in terms of resentment.
If you are convinced that China, France, or Germany will veto a Security Council resolution, then you are free to wave American flags and yell “GO get 'em, George!”. You can bank that the war won’t happen, you’re on America’s good side, win win.
GeeDubya would be right to assert a right to unilateral action if any evidence could be brought forth that Iraq posed a direct threat to the US. No such evidence is forthcoming, most likely because no such evidence exists.
Worse, Powell made some fairly weak arguments. When it comes to issues of war, heaping on lots of medium evidence is nowhere near as good as one really strong argument.
For instance, the stuff about the terrorist getting medical treatment in Baghdad, which we are reminded is the very capital of Iraq! Wow! The capital!
One of the 9/11 terrorist got his flight training here in Minnesota, are we to expect an assault on Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor led away in chains to Guantanamo!
Well, here’s the thing. Germany will not support a war under any circumstances. Period. China will not support a war under any circumstances, either, because that furthers US power, and they don’t want that. Russia and France can be convinced, but it has nothing to do with the validity of a war - it has to do with what’s in it for Russia and France. We promise them some nice oil contracts, they’ll change their minds. France will also require that their change of heart doesn’t come at the expense of appearing to cave into American dominance - their dream of a France-led EU is contingent upon their ability to stand up to the Bully Over the Sea.
So, given that the only nations who may budge are France and Russia, are you saying that your support for war depends on our ability to pay them off with war spoils?
Jeff
Even Real Audio, especially for Arabic speakers. I’d be interested in hearing if you think the translations are good.
And it doesn’t take long for the semi driver to push that big red button that you should never ever press if you are in a sci-fi movie.
You know one of the things that still troubles me is that there’s not been any discernable contribution from the famously efficient Mossad – one would have thought if a regional threat did exist, Israel would know something, or at least be able to point the US to possible / probable evidence. Yet last I read – three months ago – Israeli Intelligence saw no threat that concerned them.
Curious that Israeli Intelligence seems reasonably relaxed, and perhaps even odd given what Saddam did during Oil War 1
He must be mighty devious, this Saddam, to ensure his weapons evade satellites, all manner of other detection devices, defectors, informers, etc of probably the best three connected and equipped Intelligence agencies in the world (Yanks, Brits and Israeli’s) for, what ? 12 years or so … remarkable, really. Plus, he hosted UNSCOM for 7 years of that as well …. And at the end of all that, we’re reduced to arguing about the translation of ‘evacuation’ in relation to a truck ….
Need to update your views on China. China agreed to intervention in Afganistan, which borders China. US is China’s largest trading partners and one of China’s largest investors in terms of quantifiable Foreign Direct Investment. China invests much of it’s approximately USD250 billion in foreign exchange in US treasuries. China imports a lot of it’s oil, and like any other oil importing nation does not want to see the Middle East devolve into a war zone and the price of oil skyrocket. Also as one of the great trading/export nations in the world, China does not want the global economy to take it in the shorts if the Middle East goes up.
None of us know what kind of negotiations are on going regardng N. Korea and how that affects Iraq
There are a lot of reasons why China could be pursuaded to support action against Iraq. It is not so simple as China doesn’t want to see the US become stronger.
Sure there are plenty of backroom politics and horse trading going on. But if there is serious evidence about a very credible threat, I would hoep that some of the global players would get behind allowing the US (and hopefully the UN) to deal with the threat.