Novelist Tom Robbins said,
Naturally, I disgree strongly. In particular he has it exactly backwards when he writes, “Unfortunately, like most of the targets we pick on, Iraq is much too weak to give us the thrashing our continuously overbearing behavior deserves.” ISTM that the best time to attack Iraq is when they’re weak enough to be easily defeated. War isn’t a playground tussle.
Anyone here want to support Robbins’s POV?
I’d agree with that. The rest seems poorly thought out.
Also, Vietnam would surely be the occasion when America got it’s “butt kicked”?
No, I don’t completely agree with his opinion, it’s not very nuanced. Altough I have to admit, sometimes I do think the Bush administration is trying to bully the rest of the worl into co-operation. And it is really arrogant of GWB that he disregards the UN, and will go at it alone, anyway.
What really bugs me about this whole war, is the hidden agenda. Sure, Saddam is a despot and a tyran and he shouldn’t be in power, shouldn’t be allowed to be in power.
Both the US and the UK, though, helped create him, and sold him all the weapons of mass destruction they now want to see destroyed. And they did not inform thr UN of this either, they held this info back for as long as they could, until they had to prove that yes, Saddam did have weapons of mass destructions, and this is how we know…
I could see logic in trying to overthrow Saddam’s regime as a way of atoning for past mistakes, and making certain wrongs right again, but that would imply not making those mistakes again, or at least committing to trying to prevent those same mistakes from happening again. Neither US or UK have committed to such an agenda.
When it was in their own interest, they really didn’t care who had weapons of mass destruction. And now that those weapons are actually in the way of getting what they want, that’s when they want them gone.
I believe a lot of people in Europe think that way, that both Bush and Blair pretend to have the moral high ground on this, but they’re really only serving their own interest, again.
If Bush is so scared about a rogue nation going out of control and sarting to throw its weight around, he sould be far more worried about North Korea. But ofcourse, NK does not contain vast oil fields, so why bother?
Fox, not really.
America casualties: 50.000
Vietnamese casualties: 500.000
they may have lost the war, but they certainly won the battle
I’d like to challenge the notion that “there’s no chance the US might lose.”
To stick with the bully theme, I don’t have be beat him, I just need one good hit, and all the other kids will see vulnerability.
Our Western view of victory is far different from what I believe Saddam’s view of victory is: If he can shoot down a stealth fighter, hold out until the US embarrasses itself, convince (bribe?) a European/Asian country to support him, or get a hostage, he’ll have won. (Note: I have never asked him personally)
Cases: The Serbian Army hailed a victory over the US by shooting down a stealth fighter in May, 1999 [http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990504-f117.htm]
NATO bomb hits Chinese embassy in Belgrade [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/340966.stm]. Saddam currently uses French and Russian opposition of the US as support for his cause. Carter lost a lot (if not all) of his popular support after Iran took 7 hostages in 1979 [http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml]
(Senior Members: Is this considered a hijack?)
IMHO the worst thing about the war in Iraq is that I don’t know that it will save more innocents than it will kill.
It’s unlikely that the US will win… BUT saying there is no chance of the US losing? That’s just being idiotic and ignoring the possibilities of the situation. Imagine if the following happened:
Iraq withdrew ALL of it’s army into Baghdad, dressed them in civilian clothing and put them into residential homes. Then they armed all the normal Iraqi citizens with weapons… And somehow the normal Iraqi felt compelled to rise up and fight alongside the Iraqi army. There’s 5 million people in Baghdad. There’s another 17 million in Iraq in general.
If even half of these picked up weapons and started to fight. There’s only like 500,000 troops combined for US/UK. Of this, I’d say about half are probably equipment support, etc. stuff like that not general grunt fighters. So we have 250,000 fighters in a city of over 5 millions people engaged in urban warfare, house to house fighting? Those are huge odds. against US even if we have superior technology. Combine that with the possibility of an Al-Qaeda WMD (Bio or nuke) attack on our bases of operation in the gulf during the war and yeah it’s possible the US would lose.
But it’s very unlikely normal Iraqi’s will stand up and fight for Saddam. Even if they don’t, if we have to fight these guys in the city itself, door to door and house to house? You can’t bomb that away without killing a lot of innocent people, something the US won’t do. So it’s going to get ugly and bloody either way. Unless Iraq soldiers defect. That’s the best case scenario.
elfje,
Your quote is horribly out of context
“Both the US and the UK, though, helped create him, and sold him all the weapons of mass destruction they now want to see destroyed.”
The era in which that occurred was during the Iran/Iraq war. Weapons and support were given to Iraq to help them (a weaker country?) fight Iran (the stronger country?) since at the time the US believed Iran would soon overrun Iraq [I learned all this last night watching CBC NewWorld] leading to a much stronger Iran. It should also be noted that the WMD I think you were referring to were not directly sold from the US State Dept to Saddam’s government. The components of the weapons were knowingly sold to Saddam by US companies and later assembled in Iraq by Iraqis.
emacknight:
yes, I shouldve been more nuanced myself. They didn’t sell Saddam ALL the WMD he has now, but a lot of them. Plus, I mentioned Uk, too, it wasn’t just the US.
But just the fact that “only” the components were sold, and that the country then later assembled them itself, does not exonorate the people that sold the components in the first place.
I think, anyway. BTW, my own government isn’t innocent where that is concerned either, I think they sold weapons to the Nepales rebels, recently…
A few heads rolled over that, I can assure you.
I wouldn’t really call Iraq a weaker country, but it is significantly smaller than Iran, that’s true.
But still, they helped out Saddam by supplying him with weapons, and knew he was using biological agents in that war, and condoned it.
If they were really serious about the power struggle in that area then, they shouldve set up an independent body, and make the two countries disarmm instead of giving weapons to one party, and then later blaming them for owning it!
No?
Some wars you lose by winning.
anewthought:
“if Iraq withdrew ALL of it’s army into Baghdad.”
In this event, it is far from reasonable to assume the US would follow the spider into its chamber. One of CNN’s many retired US Generals said to this affect, that the most likely strategy is for the US to just camp outside Baghdad and wait (akin to the medieval times).
Combine that with: The people and army only follow Saddam as long as they perceive he is in power. As a citizen in your home (or recently dug trench) if you see your army rushing to take off their uniforms, and seek refuge in houses, what would you conclude? That Saddam still controls the army? Secondly, as a soldier, how seriously would you take that order? Does it sound like Saddam is still in charge?
If the US military planners watch even half as much CNN as I do, they have no doubt watched the Israeli military fail time and again trying to go into a single neighbourhood, who would risk an entire city?
But your comment raises a very serious post-war concern, what do you do with the soldiers dressed in civilian clothes? To tie this in with the original post, how could the US win against a city full of these “soldiers?” (quotations there highlight that the Geneva convention no longer considers them to be prisoners of war)
I agree with the sentiment that the US is behaving like a bully and that it deserves a smack in the mouth. I would rather see that smack come by way of a firm show of international opposition to the invasion than by Americans or Iraqis getting killed. I would love to see a unanimous UN vote against the US on this. That would chasten and embarrass the US without killing anybody. Unfortunately, too many countries don’t have the balls to say no to us, no matter how wrong we are.
Unfortunately, too many countries don’t have the balls to say no to Iraq, no matter how wrong they are.
Unfortunately, too many countries don’t have the balls to say no to the UN, no matter how wrong they are.
Unfortunately, too many countries don’t have the balls to say yes to the US, no matter how right we are.
Fortunately, the New York Times reports this morning that 55% of Americans support war against Iraq, even without UN approval. 58% say the UN is doing a poor job of handling the crisis.
And the number seems to be growing. Bush is making his case.
I expect the war to be over before the Loony Left can muster its moral outrage. Six weeks or less.
Regards,
Shodan
elfje:
“But just the fact that “only” the components were sold, and that the country then later assembled them itself, does not exonorate the people that sold the components in the first place.”
Very true, nothing short of a war crime tribunal could come close to exonerating that government (and those independent businessmen) from those atrocities committed during that time. But this doesn’t alleviate the problems we face now. No one’s hands are clean (ie US, Britain, France, Russia, Germany, China, Japan to name a few). Does this mean that Saddam goes free? If we can agree something should be done, who is willing to do it? As an aside, I’d love to see a new United Nations made up entirely of countries that have yet to commit some form of oppressive war crime, but I digress.
“If they were really serious about the power struggle in that area then, they should’ve set up an independent body, and make the two countries disarm instead of giving weapons to one party, and then later blaming them for owning it!”
I don’t want to get into hypotheticals, but has anyone be able to accomplish what you suggested? I agree this would have been the best possible solution. But wouldn’t they have gone through the same problems they are going through now? It’s hard enough to disarm one country, let alone two countries in the middle of a war. And I think I just led us in a circular argument: we shouldn’t bother with Iraq now because we didn’t do it 10 years ago, or 20 years ago? Is disarmament actually possible?
My biggest disagreement is with this ridiculous statement:
Young? In relation to what? Who is behaving maturely in the world?
How do you determine age? If it’s based on the age of the nation-state (system of govt.), the U.S. has to be the oldest in the world save for Britain (and possibly some of the smaller Euro. nations … not sure about the Nordic countries). Germany was born in WWII. Russia is a decade old. The French only got rid of Bonaparte and his ilk about 130 years ago … and technically, the Fifth Republic is also post-WWII.
Behaving badly? Like the Russians in Chechnya? Or like everyone in that ancient region of the Balkans, who are only just now getting used to the idea that they shouldn’t all kill each other? Or like every major European power, who only gave up colonialism in the last century not because of “wisdom,” but because it was an unmitigated disaster (whose effects are still torturing Africa)?
Shodan, this is about brains, not balls. Your comment explained much, actually.
To be honest, ElvisL1ves, I don’t think it is about brains.
The world would be a better place if Saddam is not running Iraq. He will never abide by his agreements. We are entirely justified in taking him out, and replacing him with a more compliant, civilized regime.
Everybody knows these things, so I don’t think it is a matter of brains. It is just that a lot of people are afraid to stand up and say so in public. The French want to curry favor with Iraq to grab the oil contracts after Saddam is out, the Arab League wants to appease the radical Islamic elements in their midst (and is not willing to morally condemn anyone in the Middle East except Israel), the Germans want to use this to force the EU into accepting them as the dominant power in Europe, and Russia is positioning itself between the US and the Third World.
The US is going to go ahead and clean up the mess for the UN regardless. The French and Germans know this, and therefore feel free to carp, and reap the benefit of a new regime in Iraq AND a chance to bash the US. No risk for them.
The US basically keeps the UN afloat already, and will continue to do so. So no risk for them, if they can convince the terrorists that the US is solely to blame, so that no one will target them.
Let the US do the heavy lifting. All benefit, no risk. Especially if you are scared of the terrorists.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, there is that pesky international law thing. You do know it’s illegal to try to “replace regimes” don’t you? And what do you mean by “compliant?” Do you want a puppet government that will do whatevrer the US says, or do you want a free democracy that will think for itself?
In GeeDubyas mind, they are the same thing. He sees an Iraq of shopkeepers and Starbucks entreprenuers, who will, quite naturally, agree with US policy. But, of course.
If the will of the people were to prevail in Turkey, that would be inconvenient. Mexico, as well, may be blessed with leaders who have the backbone and foresight to ignore the prevailing public opinion, and do what they’re told. Pakistans rulers, having recently delivered a Biggie, have enough cover to duck and abstain. If Musharaff voted “yes” he might as well kiss his ass goodbye, Pakistan would blow sky high.
As to Mr. Robbins, I kinda like his stuff, though the stench of pachouli oil kind of leaks through the pages. He’s kind of a Kurt Vonnegut without the pepper and bite of Kurt. But he’s wrong. That isn’t the worst thing. We probably don’t yet know what the worst thing is yet. I’ve given up hoping we won’t find out.
Maybe you can provide us with a cite that shows its actually illegal to replace a regime that has been proven to be corrupt, despotic and a danger to its own people and other nations. If you do then maybe Milosovic, Noriega and Omar might have a legal avenue for redress.
Are the Balkans, Panama and Afghanistan under a US puppet government? If the US didnt do it there, why would they do it in Iraq especially with the whole world watching their every step?