The Emperors (new) Gulf War clothes.

Great Debates
1

For me, and through so many threads, the premise for war (WOMD) has remained fundamentally flawed. There’s no evidence of WOMD. However, Georgie presses on and, in the next seven days, will meet Blair, address the UN and will phone the other permanent members of the UN to garner support for a fresh UN Mandate. In addition, we are promised – at least by Blair – a dossier of the apparent evidence. Further, Georgie now says he will likely seek approval for the war from Congress. In short, the wheels keep turning and, for now, they’re turning towards what Blair (and Powell) need in order to bring others to the party. The (genuine) enabling process is finally underway.

I started changing my view on the likelihood of war about 7-10 days ago when it became apparent the incessant pressure went beyond anything the circumstances, and the perceived character of Bush himself, allowed for. Until then I felt the most sense from Georgie’s gambit could be had from assuming his bellicose blatherings were early negotiating positions apropos the return of a Weapons Inspectorate. But starting 7-10 days ago, it just wasn’t making sense anymore. Here’s my problem:

The assumption – because that’s what we’re told to believe in this post 9/11 ‘perspective change’ – is that Saddam is a threat.

The reasoning (for that) is that 9/11 brought a new realisation of vulnerability to the US homeland and that, in consequence, all threats have to be reassessed. Saddam and his potential for WOMD came out top of the pile so he has to be removed. A-huh.

Except Bush can’t show us the evidence because, if there is any at all, it doesn’t comprise a serious threat - the UNSCOM reports from '98 are tainted with US manipulation and the leaders of that mission divided on Saddam’s potentiality (including Richard Butler and Scott Ritter). Nor does Saddam have links with 9/11 and, if there are any at all, he has but the most tenuous links with the ‘war on terrorism’ (sic). Plus the US won’t negotiate for their return having themselves removed the UNSCOM Inspectors. IMHO, there is little in this whole scene that doesn’t smack of US manipulation – some hyped, some just idle speculation. Yet Georgie presses on.

Nor do WOMD doesn’t work (for me) as a prime motivation for a man whose natural (character) inclination is to play golf, watch football on Sundays, hang out on the ranch in Crawford and leave Foreign Policy to, well, foreigners (nb. Isolationism). It’s just not his bag and Saddam as a threat just doesn’t work/ring true (see above) enough to warrant this degree of effort. Plus, this is too big a gamble for a first-termer with no majority. Even given the midterms and talking up the the current and futures market price of oil (almost at the ideal $30-ish a barrel), it’s not making enough sense.

So, instead, I suggest that what has happened, post-9/11, is that the US Administration realised the vulnerability inherent within its relationship with, and reliance on, the Saud family. The realisation dawned that Saudi Arabia is a powder keg of fundamentalism primed with a fuse of indeterminate length. The US forces based there might, just might, be able to keep some oil flowing but, if the Saud’s go west (or succumb to pressure from within), so does a large chunk of the western economies. Or, alternatively, fundamentalist Islam demands a price too high to pay (influencing barrel prices, Palestine, withdraw of US support for Israel, etc).

Unacceptable scenario’s both, and both of greater potentiality than anything Saddam can presently muster.

Thus I’m tending to the view that the real goal with regard Iraq is to augment or, worst-case scenario, replace the 22% of the world’s known oil reserves in Saudi with the 18% in Iraq. In short, Saddam remains (through this period) what he has always been; a pawn in the general thrust of US Foreign Policy, and his alleged WOMD but a convenient and timely decoy.

Given the stakes (flow of oil to the west), the associated issues such as the post-conflict vacuum, the reaction of fundamentalists elsewhere, the potential for destabilising the region and having no end game for US involvement simply pale.

Which presents us with something of a problem:

If WOMD aren’t the target then the return of Weapons Inspectors becomes incidental, as does the post-conflict regional faalout. In fact, Inspectors become wholly undesired by the US (note the current non-negotiating posture) – to be seen as a hurdle rather than, as previously thought, the goal.

On that basis, assuming Bush wins the approval of Congress, swings the permanent members of the UN (eg a Resolution) and produces some vague ambiguous satellite imagery, then the removal of Saddam, through war or whatever else it takes, is inevitable. And the subsequent assimilation of the Iraqi oil fields a reality. IMHO.

A clichéd conspiracy theory ? Nah, just realpolitik Texas style. Reasonable ?

I think it’s going to be a long winter.

2

IOW, this will be a war of agression, as a distinct casus belli is completely missing.
Interresting to see how the ‘auxilia’ are being given their standing orders. And there we were thinking that we lived in independant democracies. Yeah, right :frowning:

3

So you don’t think that a man whose natural (character) inclination is to play golf, watch football on Sundays, hang out on the ranch in Crawford and leave Foreign Policy to, well, foreigners (nb. Isolationism) can muster up a plan to invade Iraq because of the perceived threat of WMD, but he can come up with daring bit of intrigue spelled out in the OP? Right. As Holmes would say…you alternatively criticize the man for not having enough daring and imaginition while at the same time giving him credit for having too much.

Sorry, but Saddam should have been ousted by world coalition when he impeded the work of inspectors and then kicked them out, thus breaking his treaty obligations. But, of course, that doesn’t matter to Europeans eager to invest in gas reserves in the region, but blocked right now by embargoes with Iran and Iraq.

The threat of a megalomaniac who could be neutralized if action is taken early. A Europe that sits on its hands because it is afraid of war until it is too late. Shades of the 1930s?

4

Neurotik
I hardly think that European reluctance to war stems from any economical considerations. To me at least, it is more of an ethical, judicial problem. When does a country have the right to depose a foreign government?

The US too could as easily be viewed as a power hungry nation with a megalomaniac at the helm, that is obstructing international legislation.
By your logic it would be quite acceptable for the UN to get rid of Bush and install a more democratic regime in the US.

5

**Neurotik ** - I don’t think it’s “intrigue”, or a complicated deceit. I just don’t accept the suggested characterisation, nor do I think it’s entirely a good idea to take any politician at face value. Further, I suspect Bush isn’t inclined to make policy decisions off his own bat – he’s chairman of the board, policy formed from the consensus views of like-minded and influential subalterns.

Nor is Europe “sitting on its hands”. Evidence and legality begets legitimacy.

Are you talking about John or Sherlock ?

6

How can you possibly say that? Of course there is evidence of WOMD - the UNSCOM reports. You challenge that evidence - fine. Of course, the main accuser against UNSCOM is Scott Ritter, and I think he has been thoroughly debunked as a valid source. In any event, it remains “evidence.” The prima facie burden has been met by the Bush Administration. The burden now shifts to you to demonstrate that the UNSCOM reports are inaccurate - not merely accuse the UNSCOM reports of being inaccurate.

Until you do that, there is no evidence that there aren’t WOMD.

SUa

7

Interestingly, a similar ‘conspiracy theory’ was posited by Mo Mowlam[sup]*[/sup] today:

[sup]*[/sup]For those of you who don’t know, Ms Mowlam was Northern Ireland secretary at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, and is generally felt to have been one of the reasons for its adoption.

8

Sua – I’m unclear as to how the burden shifts. If one is accusing, then the mere accusation is not sufficient to transfer the burden. Bush needs to show what he apparently has.

Yep, we’ve discussed UNSCOM before and how the mission was infected by both the US spying agenda and the reluctance of Clinton/Allbright to allow some inspections to go ahead – it was they, according to Ritter in his explanation for resigning, whom obstructed inspections towards the end. That left more doubt than was necessary and it’s that doubt, in no small measure, on which Bush now relies.

In addition, I did read some of those UNSCOM conclusion and, while there’s a lot of talk, the actual conclusions seemed on the whole pretty lame and insubstantial – if you have stuff I haven’t read please put it up.

Regarding Ritter himself: What we discussed was his apparent shift in view from being an ardent Inspector who believed there was evidence to be unearthed to, later (now), claiming Iraq has no current capability – I worry we’re going to get in a semantic debate on that but, in essence, I hope you agree with that characterisation.

Ritter is of the view that it not he who has changed position but, instead, that the standard of proof required has changed – the UN Resolution under which he and UNSCOM operated required a 100% confirmation, he says that is now not the relevant standard and that normal international standards (including that of the right to adequate national defence) applies. By that measure – and his view – Iraq is no threat.

Ritter may be a little dodgy but Richard Butler is no angel either.

As I said before: Who’s zooming who ?

** Jjimm** – Good old Mo ! Not sure whether the claimed withdrawal of Saud money from the US helps or contradicts the theory – one would be inclined to think they have to stuff it away for a ‘rainy day’ somewhere.

In fact, I’m confused on her reasoning in that second para you cite as well. She says the US can’t stop a “revolution” but, at the same time, it can control the oil fields and/or the (next) Saudi Government…I think we depart company mid journey.

Actually, I’m tempted to think she was the victim of an over-zealous and word conscious sub-editor – where she comes from makes sense but I can’t see where she went.

9

You’re missing something here–you make it sound like he’s some Hick from The Sticks who accidentally fell into the presidency, or some bush-league newbie State Representative who just barely beat the running-for-reelection incumbent who ran a sloppy campaign and who vows to get his office back in two years.

W isn’t either of those–he’s part of the Establishment Old Guard, one of the Good Ol’ Boys, for whom it is axiomatic that war is good for business (or “bidness” as it’s pronounced in Texas :smiley: ).

It’s not a gamble to him at all, it’s obviously a cold-hearted ploy, constructed with the pretty clear knowledge of how much the American Public will stand and how far they’ll let him go. I’ll lay you dollars to donuts that he’s been waiting all summer, timing this whole thing just right, so as to catch the American Public at their most teary-eyed and sentimental, namely, “Septemberrrrrr-theeeee-elevennnnnth-[sound-effect-of-great-bell-tolling-BONNNGGG…]”

Also, this is an election year, for various state offices–senators, governors, etc.–and he’s just doing his tub-thumping bit to help his fellow GOP pols get elected in two months. “Bomb Saddam!” still plays pretty good out in the Heartland, unfortunately (plus, it rhymes). :smiley:

Watch and see if all hell don’t break loose next Wednesday.

And, LC, watch and see if a different kind of hell don’t break loose next Thursday, when the teary-eyed American public gets over its “mad” and goes back to work and realizes what exactly is going on. W is still an elected official, and deep down, rock bottom, he knows it. And like all elected officials, he wants to come back in 2004, doncha know… :wink:

Just wait 'till we get over this “Septemberrrrrr-theeeee-elevennnnnth-[sound-effect-of-great-bell-tolling-BONNNGGG…]” hump, then we’ll get back to paying attention to what’s going on in the Beltway, never you fear. :smiley: And I seriously doubt whether there will be bombs falling on Baghdad by September 17, which is Constitution Day here.

And then, see, he scores points with both sides, for having been “tough on terrorism” and then for “being a good little compromiser” (put a sticker on the Good Helper Chart, George…) when he backs off (but just a teeny, and without making it seem like he’s actually backing off, “I meant to do that…” )

And yeah, ultimately, it’s about oil. You just now figured that out? Well, bless your little heart… Here, go put a sticker on the “Got A Clue” helper chart… :smiley:

10

Sua – I’m unclear as to how the burden shifts. If one is accusing, then the mere accusation is not sufficient to transfer the burden. Bush needs to show what he apparently has.

Yep, we’ve discussed UNSCOM before and how the mission was infected by both the US spying agenda and the reluctance of Clinton/Allbright to allow some inspections to go ahead – it was they, according to Ritter in his explanation for resigning, whom obstructed inspections towards the end. That left more doubt than was necessary and it’s that doubt, in no small measure, on which Bush now relies.

In addition, I did read some of those UNSCOM conclusion and, while there’s a lot of talk, the actual conclusions seemed on the whole pretty lame and insubstantial – if you have stuff I haven’t read please put it up.

Regarding Ritter himself: What we discussed was his apparent shift in view from being an ardent Inspector who believed there was evidence to be unearthed to, later (now), claiming Iraq has no current capability – I worry we’re going to get in a semantic debate on that but, in essence, I hope you agree with that characterisation.

Ritter is of the view that it not he who has changed position but, instead, that the standard of proof required has changed – the UN Resolution under which he and UNSCOM operated required a 100% confirmation, he says that is now not the relevant standard and that normal international standards (including that of the right to adequate national defence) applies. By that measure – and his view – Iraq is no threat.

Ritter may be a little dodgy but Richard Butler is no angel either.

As I said before: Who’s zooming who ?

** Jjimm** – Good old Mo ! Not sure whether the claimed withdrawal of Saud money from the US helps or contradicts the theory – one would be inclined to think they have to stuff it away for a ‘rainy day’ somewhere.

In fact, I’m confused on her reasoning in that second para you cite as well. She says the US can’t stop a “revolution” but, at the same time, it can control the oil fields and/or the (next) Saudi Government…I think we depart company mid journey.

Actually, I’m tempted to think she was the victim of an over-zealous and word conscious sub-editor – where she comes from makes sense (at least to me) but I can’t see where she went.

11

So the Illuminati’s plan all along has be to control the oil! :smack:

12

The impression I got was that MM was saying “there will probably be an Iran-style revolution in Saudi, so US troops can be positioned in nearby Iraq to take over”.

13

Coupla thoughts:

Whoever rules Arabia, Saudi or otherwise, will need a lot of money, and will have to sell oil to the only ready customers - the same customers they’ve always had. Even controlling the price is dicey, dependent as it is on so many other nations’ actions. So, I really don’t see “control” (however one defines it) of the oil fields as playing a part in US policy planning - it’s simply a question of whose name to write on the checks.

As to Bush’s deviousness etc., it doesn’t have to be Bush doing it. He’s surrounded by mostly the old guard from his father’s administration, including his father himself, and is apparently willing to do whatever they tell him to. There’s enough deviousness in the staff to let him play golf, watch football, etc. without straining himself - and most of them are still a bit sensitive over the continuing existence of Saddam, after the one big thing they themselves accomplished the last time. If the only people Junior listens to are all telling him to finish their job, or avenge their failures, or whatever, then that’s what he’s going to do.

But it’s already decided, of course - only the tactical details remain to be sorted out. Bush’s promised consultations with the allies and Congress are plainly pro forma, essentially patronization of them rather than actual listening.

And we’re still waiting to hear the evidence of what Saddam is actually doing, not what he would like to do.

14

To accept this as the primary reason for the Administration’s desire to invade Iraq, I’d have to see some sort of evidence that the Sauds are in imminent danger of succumbing to a populist revolution. So far I haven’t seen that. Of course, the Shah didn’t see those Mullahs coming, either…

Is this a restatement of the old “Bush is in the pocket of oilmen” argument? The reason I ask is because if so, IMO this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding how the domestic oil industry works. US-based oil companies are actually more likely to benefit from the high prices and increased demand for domestic production that unrest in the Middle East would cause, than from a cheap flow of oil from nationalized foreign suppliers.

On that basis I begin to wonder whether the current saber rattling is the end itself, rather than the means to another end.

Despite the above, however, I’m inclined to think the administration is simply acting on its beliefs, however simplistic: that Iraq, Iran and North Korea are sources of evil that for some reason it is up to the US to control. Iraq gets hit first because the administration sees the overthrow of Saddam as unfinished business from the Gulf War.

I’ve gotta laugh at the Admin’s recent spin, that Bush “hasn’t made a decision yet” as to how to deal with Saddam, when it’s been painfully obvious to anyone that invasion was the plan all along. My take, from the limited info I’ve seen so far, is that the administration was hoping to barrel its way into Iraq unilaterally and with as little input from Congress or the public as possible, but seriously overestimated the amount of support, both domestically and by its allies, for its plans. Hence Bush’s sudden full-court press to take the case to the people, and effusive promises to present hard evidence that Iraq is developing nuclear weapons. I have to doubt that such compelling evidence exists, BTW. If it does, why hasn’t the admin already presented it?

Bush’s promised speech to the UN seems to have every chance of blowing up in his face, especially if the purported ‘evidence’ of Iraqi nukes is less than convincing. I still think that there will be no US invasion this year, simply on the basis that only the UK has shown any interest in backing the US so far. Most likely now seems to be some effort to get weapons inspectors back into the country, with the hope of some messy incident occurring that just happens to require the backing of US troops.

I’m presuming here that the administration is not foolish enough to believe that it can carry out an unprovoked attack on Iraq in the face of overwhelming world opinion against such an adventure. Hey, maybe Bush and Co. ARE that foolish…

15

Goosie – Sorry about the sandwich.
Well people, I’m sorry if it’s all blindingly obvious to everyone else. Problem is, for me anyway, it’s easy to say its “all about oil” but it’s not always as easy to work through a rationale that rings more true than the spun explanation. And there ain’t been too much on the board that I’ve read on that in quite a few threads.

And I believe Bush speaks before the UN on September 12th. In spread betting terms, I’m currently buying the number of “The American people…” say-eths at eight and selling at six. Anything over four sibabools and they do the a UN wave.

Whatever else, it’s a big week coming up.

Elvis – I think it’s important to remember that, as presently constituted, whoever controls Saudi oil, influences the market price. Not just through supply and demand but also as the main player in OPEC.

Nay, nay and thrice nay. Just recognition that the US (and the western world, to be frank) needs imported oil and the Saud’s can’t be as resolutely relied on to supply it as they once were. Bush wants more fingers in more pies. Don’t we all, Matron.

16

Given what I know about dubya, I suspect that if he does get us into a war over Iraq, the real reason will be oil, & not WOMD. IIRC, it was John Flynn who wrote, “The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine, & barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage & senile & paranoid peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.”

17

Goosie, m’love, I have to call you on something.

Actually, I think you’ll find that in most of the Heartland, it’s doesn’t. Fortunately, however, “Damn Saddam” does. :g:

18

Step 1 - Bush says Iraq has WOMD.

Step 2 - doubters say “prove it.” Burden is on Bush to do so

Step 3 - Bush says, “OK, I will. Here are the UNSCOM reports.” At this point, Bush has set for his prima facie case. He has set forth his evidence.

Now, if you wish to demonstrate that the evidence upon which Bush relies is flawed, have at it. But it is your burden to demonstrate that the UNSCOM evidence does not accurately reflect the situation in Iraq in 1998.

It’s like it is on TV. When the prosecutor puts the eyewitness on the stand, and the eyewitness identifies the defendant as the perpetrator, it is up to the defense counsel to demonstrate that the eyewitness needs new glasses.

And you have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that UNSCOM needed new glasses. All you have is Ritter.

I most certainly do not agree with that characterization, and frankly I’m surprised you thought that I would. What we discussed was whether he was lying in 1998 or now.

Back in 1998, Ritter was not merely saying that there was further evidence to be unearthed; he was saying that Iraq possessed WOMD. I don’t want to get back to Ritter, but dammit, I quoted the following bit the last go round - from an article written by Ritter in December 1998.

http://www.tnr.com/archive/1298/122198/ritter122198.html

L_C, you’re usually much better than this. I fully acknowledge that there are many strong arguments against attacking Iraq. But you have to stop making this one. The accusations against UNSCOM and the evidence of WOMD come from a man who is thoroughly discredited.

Sua

19

Sua,

Are you aware of today’s scandal? CBS confirmed the suspicion that the RW Hawks were looking to hit Saddam, on 9/11, evidence be damned.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t buy your rhetorical device that these madmen deserve the benefit of the doubt.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

20

What, that it doesn’t play, or that it doesn’t rhyme? 'Round here they’re pronouncing it “Sod-DOM” to rhyme with “bomb” and when they say “Bomb Sod-DOM”, they look very pleased with themselves, as though the words fit together somehow…

And they will point out that “Hey, we’re already bombing him, what’s the big deal with stepping up the pace a little bit?”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-patrolling-iraq0830aug30.story

Maybe I just happen to hang out with a lot of U.S. Postal Service rednecks. :smiley: Anyway, George gets a lot of points with these people for “going toe to toe” with the Evil Ay-rabs. :rolleyes: And they will remember that in 2004, after he’s had to back down just a teensy. “Yeah, George, he was all for going mano a mano with Sod-DOM, but the left-wing commie pinko peacenik liberals made him back down, but he COULDA done it, we COULDA bombed the crap outta Baghdad and fired Sod-DOM’s ass outta there, instead we got more a them UN folks in the baby-blue helmets futzing around getting nothing done as usual…”