Should the US attack Iraq without UN approval?

[Mr.Svinlesha]

First off, I just want to thank Hank B, Latro, and annonplz for their kind words. I’m genuinely flattered. I just hope my head doesn’t swell up too big…

…and lead me to post something really stupid, and blow it.

Then, I wanted to reply to this statement by Latro:

• Very commendable how you keep so reasonable and eloquent with people who can’t grasp simple concepts… People that are quite happy to see thousands of people killed and mutilated, happy to start a war of agression without any real reason at all and without any clear end-scenario at all.*

You know, I agree with you that there are a lot of people out there like that; some of them have even posted in this thread. But truth to tell, I’ve not been directing my energies towards them – they’re hardly worth the effort. Their minds are made up, and the facts only confuse them; I’ve little other than contempt left over for such muck.

On the other hand, I don’t think that El Jeffe, Sam Stone, or annonplz deserve that sort of characterization. I think they are just as sincere in their beliefs as I am, probably just as concerned about the situation in the Middle East as I am, and just as driven to ”do the right thing” as I am. We simply have a very deep disagreement about what it means to ”do the right thing” regarding Iraq – which is also understandable, since it’s such a complex issue.

As I’ve pointed out in other threads, and also mentioned here, it is incumbent on the Bush administration to make its case for attacking Iraq. Since that case has so little basis in actual facts, Bush & Co. must fall back upon time-honored techniques of rhetoric, propaganda, and insinuation in order to support their position. This involves all sorts of tricks, but primary among them is exaggeration: creating in the public mind an image of Iraq as a credible, direct, and imminent threat to all Americans, by vastly inflating the danger it actually poses. Administration speech writers are masters at this sort of thing. Observe, from Bush’s latest address:

*originally posted by President Shrub:

First, I’m asked why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people….Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction…. [He possesses] a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions.*

Now, some of the statements above are true; Saddam Hussein really is, for example, a murderous tyrannt. But many of the arguments Bush presents here simply don’t hold water. For example, other states in the region also have advanced nuclear weapons programs, stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, and are ruled by dictators who exhibit little concern for human rights, so one can scarcely argue that ”Iraq stands alone” with regard to these problems. And some of his statements are exaggerations bordering on outright falsehood: no one seriously believes that Iraq can kill ”millions” with its stock of anthrax and botulism, for example.

On the other hand, adroitly weaving between truths, half-truths, innuendo, and falsehoods, Bush effectively constructs the image of a Frankenstein’s monster whom he calls Saddam Hussein. And my point is that a body can get a little nervous when it’s hit with this sort of rhetoric, and worse, day in and day out. Those who live outside of the US have no idea how much disinformation the average American citizen is subjected to. After all, this is the President of the United States speaking; most of us Americans have been inculcated from birth to respect that office and what it (reportedly) stands for.

So no, I don’t think annonplz or Sam, for example, would gladly let millions die just so they can save a nickel at the gas pump. I think they are sincerely concerned to do the right thing, and view Saddam as a threat: maybe an unknown quantity. Why take a risk? And these are the people I direct my energies to, because I respect them and have faith in their basic humanity, even if we also disagree with each other over certain specifics.

Having said that, there is a moral element to the arguments that favor war which disturbs me. A preemptive attack against Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, a cost-free solution for Americans – at least in the short run. By cost-free, I’m not referring to the financial cost of the war, by the way. I’m referring to the emotional cost. Given the US military’s overwhelming technological superiority, assaulting Iraq will in all probability be a very inexpensive operation, at least in terms of American lives. We’ll just punch a few buttons, drop a few bombs, and waltz in.

I’ve had trouble locating reliable information on the US- Iraq casualty ratio during the Gulf War. The US lost a total of 148 servicemen during the month-long hostilities; 35 of those were due to ”friendly fire.” That leaves 103 servicemen killed by enemy forces. In comparison, the low-end estimate of Iraqi combat casualties is around 8000. That would yield about an 80-to-1 kill ratio for American troops. High-end estimates of Iraqi casualties, on the other hand, hover around 200,000, which would yield an incredible 2000-to-1 rate. Most sources I’ve found thus far estimate about a 600-to-1 ratio – for every 600 Iraqis we killed, we lost one marine. Astonishingly, I’ve read that the casualty rate per capita for servicemen stationed within the US was higher than it was for those actually serving on the front lines during the Gulf War.

My point with all of this is simple: it’s easy to advocate war when your side stands to lose so very little. In fact, it’s maybe too easy. Americans will not bear the emotional costs of a war against Iraq; Iraqis will. The people of Iraq will. Remember how we felt, watching the Twin Towers fall? If we start bombing downtown Baghdad, that’s how most Iraqis will feel. And they’ll be at a loss as well, because as far as they can tell, they’ve never lifted a finger against the US. And I think that that’s part of what blinds a lot of people in this discussion. We’re not talking about sending over thousands of US troops, who may die in battle against an evil and ruthless enemy, in order to secure the freedoms we hold dear; we’re talking about bombing an already weakened nation senseless, because we either 1) simply want to control that region of the world, or 2) suspect, on the slimmest evidence imaginable, that Iraq actually constitutes a serious threat to the security of the world’s greatest, and last remaining, superpower.

anonplz:

• Tragically, it seems that last night after spending an hour and a half or so constructing a response to YOUR response, with quotes from Fox News, the Center for Defense Information, the Telegraph.co.uk, etc., I accidentally lost EVERYTHING!! (Has that ever happened to you?) *

Bummer. I usually write out my responses in a word program, first, especially if they’re long, and then cut and paste. That way I’ve always got a backup in the event that my opinions disappear into cyberspace.

patom:

What elucidator said.
elucidator:

Thanks for sticking up for me in my absence.

• What does Al-Queda have that Saddam bin Laden does not have? A special terrorism discount with Fed Ex?

*Well, you know…when it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight.

barb:

• I’m going to play some chess and not waste my time on this thread anymore.

*Yes, yes, we understand…discretion being the better part of valor, and all that. For your sake, I hope your chess game is better than your debating skills.

Don’t let the door hit ya on yer ass on the way out.

[Sam_Stone]

Mr. Svinlesha: Thanks for the nice comments. And you’re right - I worry a lot about the morality of this action. As a libertarian, the initiation of force is anathema to me.

But still… To me, the situation is this:

1. Saddam is the one who has initiated force. He invaded Kuwait. We never signed an armistice with him. We signed a conditional cease-fire. He is in violation of the terms of that cease-fire. Therefore, we have the legal and moral right to attack, IF it is the right thing to do.

2. Given what I understand of Saddam’s nature, it seems to me that war is absolutely inevitable. The question is, is it a war now while he is weak and it can be carried out with minimal losses on both sides, or will it be ten years from now when he occupies Kuwait, has nuclear weapons, and a much more potent conventional military?

Think of this analogy: If the west had declared war on Germany in 1938, how many lives would have been lost? As compared to the horrow of WWII. Sometimes all appeasement does is give more power to the most immoral actors.

3. The best hope for preventing bloodshed of any kind in Iraq is to prepare for war. The possible result is an internal coup and a collapse of the Hussein regime. There are already reports coming out of Iraq of attempts on his life and defections inside his inner circle.

4. Even if you want inspections, the best way to achieve them is to prepare for war. Real, effective inspections are only going to happen if Saddam truly, honestly believes that they are the only way he can stay in power.

5. The loss of life in a war against Iraq is unknown, but almost certainly less than the loss of life that would occur from a single nuclear detonation in a major city, such as Tel Aviv.

To me, it seems like the best road towards world peace (a situation I hope we all desire) is to make a short, sharp military correction now, to bring the worst state back into line. This will have a chilling effect on other marginal states, and be the first major move in creating a more peaceful, democratic world. The alternative of just letting Saddam keep on doing what he’s doing now will condemn us to years of fear, and will likely result in nuclear blackmail at some point. I honestly believe that a middle east with Saddam in it will erupt in war within a decade no matter what we do. Saddam is too ambitious and getting too old to spend hundreds of billions on weapons of mass destruction and then just sit on them.

[elucidator]

Sam your post is littered with presumptions offered as fact.

Firstly, you offer an eleven year old technicality as a “legal” right to resume active hostilities. Let me offer an equally important, and equally vapid, technicality. The UN is party to the cease-fire with Iraq. The US is not the senior partner, it has not been appointed sheriff, it has no special authority from the UN to assert the will of the UN. If the legitimacy of our war is based on the legitimacy of the UN, then the UN issues the orders and we march, not vice versa.

But we both know this is silly, a technicality, nothing more. The speech to the UN was merely window dressing. It would be nice if the UN tags along, give a nice patina of legality to things. But his statements and attitude made it clear: go with us, or we go alone. We dont care, we dont have to. We’re the Americans.

2. As impressed as I am with your abilities in reading Saddam bin Laden’s mind, I respectfully demure. There is far too much clairovoyance being practiced as statesmanship. Further, your assumption of minimal casualties on both sides is breathtaking. How can one even say “cite?”

I commend your concern with minimal casualties. May I make so bold as to suggest that there is an obvious course to make them minimal? As in zero?

By what magic do you assure me that if we dont go to war now, right now, this instant, that ten years from now things will be as you say. From whence this precognition? Your impression of Saddam? On this you would base a decision like war?

3. Jesus, where have I heard this before? The best way to prevent war is to be ready for it. Ever read any Barbara Tuchman, say Guns of August. No, my friend, the best way to ensure war is to prepare for it, to empower men who derive their significance and thier dignity from war.

4. I have no idea why you included this point. If we attack Iraq there will be death. Right now. Presently. You presume a balance between immediate corpses and theoretical ones, and presume to know what that balance should be. Before you do stuff like that, you ought to be at least able to walk on water.

Who’s living in fear? Nobody I know was walking about in a state of anxiety, gnawing thier lip with fear of what Saddam bin Laden was going to do. Until Bush started rattling the sabres and rattling Saddam’s cage, Iraq was quite far from the mind of the average citizen. Other things were quite in the foreground, you may recall. Before Weapons of Mass Distraction were employed.

And he has “spent hundreds of millions of dollars” on weapons of mass destruction? Your astonishing grasp of things that, so far, seem to eluded everyone else is, well, incredible. Simply incredible.

If all of this is so, why is it so difficult to attract allies? One would think they would be clamoring to join us. Where are they?

[Henry_B]

Why am I called “Hank” for the second time in this thread?

“Hank the VIII I am, Hank the VIII I am, I am…,” does not sound good.

I like more my own name; Henry

Henry B.

[elucidator]

In America, “Hank” is the familiar, “nick-name” form of Henry. It has no perjorative connotations. Richard=Dick, John = Jack, Henry=Hank.

[Scylla]

I say we work out a peaceful compromise and wait for things to cool down.

Then we attack!

[sub]I mean, who’s going to stop us?[/sub]

[Henry_B]

Hank will!