Warmongers

Great Debates
1

Now, this is not a bash-USA thread. We are in it now, we’re stuck with it, that argument is pretty much over.

What I’m worried about is this: this is an excellent opportunity for a “Lets you and him fight” scenario.

Even from the earliest days, there are powerful members of the Administration who were pushing to include Iraq in this war. I am not suggesting that these people would manufacture evidence of Iraqi involvement, only that they would, like the rest of us, be rather quick to accept evidence that supports a premise they already believe.

Who might do this? The usual suspects.

Top of the list: Iran, long-standing mortal enemy of Iraq. They would love nothing better than a war between two of thier enemies. Could they? Well, one of the more sophisticated practitioners of the Black Arts of Intelligence was SAVAK, the dreaded secret police of the late, unlamented Shah of Iran. Wouldn’t be the first time a new regime converted thier enemies into assets. Witness the US and the German rocket scientists, just for one.

Next: Israel, who are the acknowledged masters of this kind of skullduggery, and who would positively love a war against Iraq. They would also be happy to put various Lebanese factions in the hot seat.

But Isreal is our ally, yes? Well, sort of. We are Israel’s best friend, but they are not ours. The “hawk” administration of Israel is led by Ariel Sharon. They have an utterly “survivalist” mentality, they would have no problem at all with hoodwinking the US into attacking thier enemies.

At the very least, we must insist that any evidence implicating a regime other than the Taliban’s must be rigorously and publicly examined. This will be very, very difficult.
“Operational…confidential…compromising assets” We’ve already heard this, we will again. Worse, we can expect the false trail to be expertly laid, and that skeptics will be treated with the scorn the vast majority of Americans feel for “naive, fuzzy-thinking peacenks”

Iraq is the most obvious target of “disinformation”, but certainly not the only one.

What can be done?

2

Let’s be pragmatic and talk about the price and supply of cheap oil. We really don’t want to pay more than $25 per barrel. Considering the environmental cost of digging in Alaska, we cannot really become independent of foreign oil supplies. Just imagine if the price of oil starts going upward of $50 per barrel. Next thing, in total rage over “high” gas prices, Johny Sixpack takes his gun in his SUV and starts shooting at the poor gas pump attendant in Yuha-Town, Tennessee.

As you know, all major oil companies have recently concentrated their exploration and drilling efforts in and around the newly found loot, namely Azerbaijan and other countries surrounding the Caspian Sea.

As you also know, we now have options to pipeline the cheap Caspian Sea oil either through Turkey and the Balkans (which we recently flattened and followed up by sending the World Bank to implement a Marshall Plan, including pipelines going west), or by pipelining through Afghanistan (which we are currently flattening and will no doubt follow-up with a Marshall Plan that will include pipelines going south through the country).

Now with such source of supply of new and cheap oil, do we really need Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arab oil? So, we can now pull out U.S. presence in those countries (as the Jihad has asked us to do), and recognize the State of Palestine. This will make us the good guys in the eyes of the Arabs, and stops terrorism in the US. We don’t even have to bother about Iran, Iraq, Syria or Libya as terrorist nations.

So what if the Israelis and the Arabs start fighting it out. Even if Israel unleashes its nuclear weapons in the area, nobody can get near those Arab oil wells for the next 25 years due to radiation. However, US and its allies will be fine with $25 per barrel of oil from the Caspian.

Problem solved. Simple. No?

3

I would describe this scenario as “Kissingeresque”. Please keep in mind, I regard that as loathesome. Pragmatic, to be sure, but rather offhanded about the messy fact of dead bodies lying about. Everywhere.

It is also off-subject. I am concerned that we take measures to prevent a wider war, to prevent the unfortunate littering of the landscape mentioned above. Now, I do not doubt that the price of oil is a significant factor. However, which is an easier “sell” to the American people: nuke Baghdad for $1.00 a gallon gas, or nuke Baghdad because they are the source of the anthrax (which story is already being bruited about, see Drudge)

You present an intriquing Realpolitik scenario, indeed worthy of its own thread. Which I recommend, most cordially.

4

Or maybe a better solution; pour more money and research into developing alternative fuels. The Middle East has had the USA by the balls for far too long over the oil business. It’s about damned time we got that moneky off our backs.

5

I would describe this scenario as “Kissingeresque”. Please keep in mind, I regard that as loathesome. Pragmatic, to be sure, but rather offhanded about the messy fact of dead bodies lying about. Everywhere.

It is also off-subject. I am concerned that we take measures to prevent a wider war, to prevent the unfortunate littering of the landscape mentioned above. Now, I do not doubt that the price of oil is a significant factor. However, which is an easier “sell” to the American people: nuke Baghdad for $1.00 a gallon gas, or nuke Baghdad because they are the source of the anthrax (which story is already being bruited about, see Drudge)

You present an intriquing Realpolitik scenario, indeed worthy of its own thread. Which I recommend, most cordially.

6

Do the 9/11 bombings and the follow-up anthrax attacks count as an environmental cost of NOT using Alaskan oil?

7

I don’t know what the blankety-blank is going on, but I am not getting the message that my post has been posted, so I end up looking like a doofus. Moderator, please be so kind as to expunge duplicates.

And HEY you guys!

If your interest is in a “price of oil/foriegn policy” thread, would you kindly bugger off and do one?

8

Attention: Moderators

elucidator is absolutely right.

Yesterday, I tried to post to the following thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92842

It ended up posting 3 times. Could you please pack the three postings to one?

To: elucidator

Quit complaining that people are not addressing the gist of your OP. Maybe, you should be more precise and focused on the subject and title of your post. If you are implying that the government is misinforming the public, then why the title of your OP is Warmongers?

If your point is that the Peace Demonstrators are being painted by the government as naive, why don’t you articulate your objection?

If you are saying that the underlying US foreign policy is really “let you and him fight”, but they are not presenting it to us that way, then why do you object to posts on this thread discussing the US foreign policy in the current fight against terrorism.

In short, can you articulate what is your point under the title: Warmongers?

Thanx

9

“Ask and it shall be given…”

It would serve the interests of other powers to widen the US conflict with the Taliban to other states that may, or may not, have any connection with the recent WTC. As we are already inclined (to say the least} towards hostillity with Iraq, it would serve the interests of Iran, or Israel, or who knows who else, to provide bogus evidence that would purport to show, say, a connection between the anthrax scares and Iraq. Or Iran. Or Lebanon.

One Cell I really thought that was clear. It wouldn’t be the first time I have foisted a thread upon an uninterested SDMB and watched it drift away unattended. So be it. An examination of the impact of oil politics on American foreign policy, however fascinating a topic that may be, is not directly at issue.

On the other hand, its a free board. I claim no authority to restrict any of its content, whatsoever. However, if oil policy etc. is your interest, would it not be better placed under a thread OP that talks about “oil”? I also have thoughts on that, and am likely to join you there.

OK-dokey?

10

“Ask and it shall be given…”

It would serve the interests of other powers to widen the US conflict with the Taliban to other states that may, or may not, have any connection with the recent WTC. As we are already inclined (to say the least} towards hostillity with Iraq, it would serve the interests of Iran, or Israel, or who knows who else, to provide bogus evidence that would purport to show, say, a connection between the anthrax scares and Iraq. Or Iran. Or Lebanon.

One Cell I really thought that was clear. It wouldn’t be the first time I have foisted a thread upon an uninterested SDMB and watched it drift away unattended. So be it. An examination of the impact of oil politics on American foreign policy, however fascinating a topic that may be, is not directly at issue.

On the other hand, its a free board. I claim no authority to restrict any of its content, whatsoever. However, if oil policy etc. is your interest, would it not be better placed under a thread OP that talks about “oil”? I also have thoughts on that, and am likely to join you there.

OK-dokey?

11

So, elucidator, the gist of your OP is your concern that the U.S, can be hoodwinked to attack Iraq by other powers’ bogus evidence and misinformation.

IMHO you can be rest assured that such scenario is extremely unlikely for the following reasons:

1- If it is in foreign and domestic policy interest of the US to attack Iraq, it will be done irrespective of any evidence, bogus or not. We attacked Afghanistan because (1) Overwhelming majority of Americans demanded action/revenge against the WTC massacre, and (2) It probably fitted nicely into the U.S. long range geopolitical objectives and plans for the area. We really did not need a full proof evidence of OBL/Taliban involvement in the WTC tragedy to start bombing Alqada headquarters in Afghanistan. As horrible as the WTC tragedy was, it gave us the Carte Blanche to go ahead.

2- Historically, US and UK have been masters in hoodwinking other nations to go to war with each other where the reasons and the ultimate outcome were planned to be in the interest of the West. Just remember who planned to put Islam between Soviet Union and their potential access to the Indian Ocean. Do you really think such masters and superpowers are going to be duped by Israeli Mossad, Iranian Vevak, the Iraqi Mukhabarat, or other lesser powers’ Intelligence Agencies?

3- Please note that in addition to the CIA, the U.S. has DIA, NSA, NRO and other spy networks that give us information no other country in the world can possibly possess. Other nations are incapable of doing that, simply because they have not set up the infrastructure in space and other places. At the end of the day, we’ll know more than they know. Information is power, and we have more of it than any other nation on this planet.
4- We can take (or not take) the imagery from our satellites, and digitally manipulate them to show our allies or foes as 100% proof and evidence for whatever we want them to believe. The other powers, however, cannot do that to us without us asking for 100% proof and verification of their evidence. In short, nobody can present to the US Intelligence community any bogus evidence without the US being able to verify it independently.

So, elucidator, I wouldn’t worry too much about us getting duped by misinformation.

12

I just want to point out that there are really only two ways to publicly air the evidence required to implicate anyone in these attacks.

One way would be to release what would be considered “privileged” information. That would be our very secret communications analysis and any human intelligence we have received (which, according to many sources, is very little). It’s the fastest way, but it represents such an extreme risk that I can guarantee you it won’t be done. Revealing what information we have gathered covertly reveals how we retrieved that information, encourages Al Qaeda to change the way they work, and endangers our precious few insiders who may be feeding us information.

(In fact, elucidator and I have tangled over this before. I maintain that the objective of the attacks on Afghanistan is (and should be) to violently disrupt and disperse Al Qaeda so that they must use remote–and presumably observable–communications, making them play the game we’re best at. It appears to be working, too. CNN reports that four bombing plots have been headed off since the 11th of September.)

The second way is the “crime scene” approach. That requires a painstaking process of assembling physical evidence. If one chooses to believe that we already know who attacked us (the United States) thanks to our intelligence, as our officials have indicated, it speeds up the process somewhat. However, it is still a much slower process because the information must be assembled in such a way that the covert sources are completely concealed.

Both processes work hand in hand. CIA and NSA feed the FBI what they need to know in order to confirm the covert information we already have. The FBI can also point out any evidentiary contradictions, which will help us keep our human intelligence honest. In theory it should be a fairly dependable process, but only if the two work together closely. However, manipulation–of the information and of the public–is probably also a part of the process.

13

Just to clarify: I am not, repeat, not discussing the information relationship between the Pentagon, etc, with the American public, good, bad or indifferent.

What I’m concerned about here is the possibility, even likelihood, that another state player (Iran, Isreal, whomsoever) taking advantage of the situation in order to implicate thier favorite enemy in order to motivate the US to attack that enemy. A scenario like Iran concocting “evidence” the Iraq was directly involved in the WTC bombings, or the recent anthrax scare would be sympatheticly recieved by elements of the administration.

No doubt, evidence cooked up by Syria, say, to implicate Israel would be examined with all the skepticism it deserves. But would the same standards apply to Iraq?

One Cell seems to have unalloyed confidence in the CIA’s abilities, which I don’t share. Case in point would be how the USSR collapsed utterly without CIA having so much as a clue.

Of course, this only really matters, realpolitic wise, if you regard a multi-state military engagement in the Middle East as a nightmare scenario. Lest there by any doubt, that scares the bejabbers out of me.

What is to be done?

14

Nope, not Iran.

  1. Iran is also a mortal enemy of the Taliban, yet they are condemning our military operations in Afghanistan. Either they don’t wish the US to be involved in their neck of the woods, or they aren’t very bright about their self-interest;
  2. Iran had its opportunity to help the US defeat Saddam in 1991. Instead, they allowed Iraq’s air force to seek shelter in their country;
  3. Regardless of the “enemy of my enemy theory”, Iran sure isn’t going to be comfortable with a large U.S. army on their border, particularly at a time when the U.S. is terrorist-hunting, and Iran is considered a sponsor of terrorism.

And how you expect to do this? Mail copies of the evidence to each American household? But, since copies can be tampered with, we have to look at the original documents. That would take quite a while, and people like me would probably leave them on the subway. :smiley:
The above is a bit facetious, but it demonstrates my point - “public examination” would simply mean that non-governmental experts would look at the evidence. We, the public, would have to trust their analysis. Why should we trust non-governmental types any more than governmental types? Because they don’t have an agenda? Puh-lease.

Sua

15

In my last post, I ignored your concerns about Israel because I considered them realistic, if unlikely. But on second thought, the idea of Israel concocting evidence in order to embroil the U.S. into an invasion of Iraq is incredible.

What if Israel gets caught? It is one thing to play fast and loose with intelligence and evidence in order to influence an ally’s policies, but it is a different kettle of fish to fraudulently induce that ally into sending its troops into harm’s way and receiving casualties. Can you imagine the reaction in this country if, after the U.S. suffers 2,000 KIA in an invasion of Iraq, it was discovered that Israel set us up?
At the very least, Israel would never get another penny or another arms sale from the U.S. More likely, we would renounce our alliance with Israel and cut them loose. Israel ultimately remains dependent on the U.S. for its security, barring the use of its nuclear deterrent. Regardless of what you think of Israel’s leadership, it is sane, and it would not take the chance you suggest simply because it would “love” a U.S.-Iraq war.

Sua

16

Cogent posts, both.

Sua Sponte I agree that such a move by Israel would be fraught with peril for them. But Mossad has shown itself to be a world leader when it comes to plain ol’guts. Not that this is necessarily admirable in all situations. Witness the Johnathon Pollard scandal.

The question then would be to manufacture evidence, or even only to exggerate existing evidence, without leaving any “fingerprints”. Even so, they might well reason that if they get caught after the fact, that is, after their goals have been, the US might prefer to cover that up rather than admit to the world they had been had. IMHO. an entirely plausible conjecture.

The main fear with this scenario, as I see it, is that such as Dept Sec Wolfowitz already believe it, without any evidence (so far as we know “operational…confidential” etc) . Now, I am not suggesting they would knowingly cooperate with such a plot, only that they are a very easy “sell”.

As to Iran, good points. If we are to assume that Iran operates entirely from a rational understanding of her self-interest, I agree. History shows this is not always the case. Recent events seem to indicate that Iran may very soon struggle free of its domination by the extreme religious element. Were this already the case, I would breathe that much easier.

One thing about pessimism such as my own: most surprises are pleasant. They are also regretably rare.

17

I’m not sure that arguement is right. The last time this happenned Israel was shelled, and could do nothing to protect itself, per U.S. requests. I don;t think they are looking forward to more bombs landing in Tel Aviv, and having their Air Force grounded.

As much as Israel would like help with their problems, I doubt this is the way they want it.

18

IMHO it has been in the US policy interest to attack Iraq for the last 9 years, but we haven’t done so. Iraq has not been fulfilling their commitment to permit arms inspections. Under George Bush 41, we tried to inspect and were stymied. Under Clinton we stopped even trying. Meanwhile the media dropped the story. Kind of “Out of sight, out of mind.”

There have been lots of indications from defectors that Saddam Hussein is in the process of building nuclear weapons. The time to overthrow him is NOW – before those weapons are ready. Otherwise, he may be in a position to wipe out, say, Chicago, which would wipe out The Straight Dope, as well as millions of people.

In a sense the WTC attack was lucky for us because it’s a reminder of just how bad a nuclear attack by terrorists could be.

I would invite someone explaining why they think it may not be in the US interest to attack Iraq. I just don’t get it. :confused:

19

Happy to oblige by providing some explanation:

1- Sadam provides a good excuse to maintain U.S military presence in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Oman (conveniently close to the largest oilfields, rigs and tanker pathways of this world). Why should we attack Iraq and get rid of Saddam when we need him?

2- As long as Saddam is there, Iran’s Ayatollahs do not dare to be adventurous. If we attack Iraq and remove Saddam, what puppet government are we going to put in its place? Wouldn’t the resulting Iraqi instability invite Iranian adventures to reclaim their losses of the 8-year war? What do we do if Iran attacks Iraq as a result of our destabilizing move against Iraq? Note that if we control the supply of oil, we control its price. Let the OPEC gather and conspire. By isolating Saddam and economically boycotting Iran, we’ve got Iraq and Iran oil supplies (and consequently OPEC) where we want them to be.

3- Like it or not, America is still a cowboy country. Using the same guns and mentality, she has merely replaced her cows with SUVs. America needs a “bad guy” – a good enemy. With Soviet Union out of the picture, what better candidate than Saddam? Let’s keep him there, and once-in-a-while kick his butt.

4- Currently Russia, China, the French and others appear OK with our venture against the Taliban in Afghanistan. I doubt if they will agree or sit quiet, should we dare (or delegate to Israel) to attack Iraq. That will cause a big problem.

The above are just a few reasons. There are many others.

20

If Saddam was “deposed” and the populace of Iraq actually really elected somebody (with the UN overseeing the election), who’s to say that the new government would be unstable? Yes, there would be a portion of the country claiming that the election was fixed, but how much worse could we do seeing who’s there now? Besides the fact that the new Iraq would probably be released from the sanctions it’s currently under. Wouldn’t that go a good ways toward showing that the US operated in good faith?

Then again, would it matter? I don’t know.

And, if we waved a “Remember what happened in Kuwait” banner, wouldn’t that be enough to warn off Iran from trying to get too frisky?

Enigmas, mysteries, and conundrums. I should’ve taken more math, chemistry, and poly sci instead of marketing.