Why now?

Great Debates
1

Is there any reason tomorrow has to be the day that we start this war?

Mr. Bush presented a reasonably coherent argument that Saddam Hussein is a threat. But his most specific claim is that

“We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”

I think that reasonable people could disagree about the assessment of Iraq’s power. Nonetheless, the current threat from Iraq is not enough that Mr.Bush claimed we were in imminent danger. If not, why is tomorrow the day?

2

Perhaps the elections 2004 have something to do with the hurry?

3

Cos it’s damn hot and it’s getting damn hotter. The weather and the politics. Napoleon had the snow outside Moscow, George has the heat x 2

4

Lots of reasons:

  1. Every day it gets hotter;

  2. Every day is a day more biological or chemical weapons can be produced;

  3. Every day is one day closer to Saddam getting nukes;

  4. Every day is a day more rockets/UAV’s are built;

  5. Every day is one more day for the Republican Guard to dig in around Baghdad, causing more military and civilian casualties;

  6. Every day another 137 Iraqis die due to the sanctions;

  7. Etc.

Sua

5

Lots of reasons:

  1. Every day it gets hotter;

  2. Every day is a day more biological or chemical weapons can be produced;

  3. Every day is one day closer to Saddam getting nukes;

  4. Every day is a day more rockets/UAV’s are built;

  5. Every day is one more day for the Republican Guard to dig in around Baghdad, causing more military and civilian casualties;

  6. Every day another 137 Iraqis die due to the sanctions;

  7. Etc.

Sua

6

Sua’s claims 2,3, and 4 seem particularly farfetched given that these things have NOT happened over the last 12 years, and are even less likely to happen when there are UN inspectors all over the place.

7

Sua:

  1. True, and probably the primary reason other than election scheduling.

  2. Supposition, based on faith in Bush’s truthfulness. The vidence leading you to that conclusion is what?

  3. Extreme supposition, even Bush isn’t trying to prop up that claim anymore. I won’t even ask for evidence.

  4. Sheer imagination, especially considering the rate at which they were being destroyed up until now.

  5. Only if they’re planning to fight instead of surrender, in which case it’s going to be bloody anyway. Is there any evidence of the RG’s digging in anyway?

  6. That can be stopped without war.

  7. Out of ideas already?

8

As many may know, I have been against US action without UN support. But we have crossed the point of no return, and without giving up my right to be critical about how we got here, I now reluctantly support military action. Turning back is an even worse option - at this point.

So, why now?

I think weather is a major contributor. At this late date, the US has already accepted significant risk if Iraq is able to draw this out at all. There is no reason to risk additional weather complications.

I am not quite as cynical to suggest election schedules, but I don’t entirely dismiss it either.

It seems to me that the North Korea issue is yet another factor. The US would like nothing else to secure Iraq, allow in additional peacekeeping forces, and retain the flexibility to redeploy the US “first strike” forces in other theaters. Once Saddam is deposed, at least a few carriers could be redeployed, not to mention special ops, the 101st airborne division, etc.

While that may not mean another war, the threat may be very useful for the skilled (sic) diplomacy of the current administration.

At this point, there is no reason to draw it out any further.

9

So, SuaSponte offers the weather, stiffened resistance, and stuff rebutted by Elvis and bullfighter.

AZCowboy offers the weather, need for troops elsewhere, and ‘no reason not to’ do it sooner than later.

The weather will be more advantageous in the fall than it is right now; there are dust storms, plus the average temp is like 85 in the next few weeks.

Any other ideas?

I suspect the Iraqis have known for some time that an attack is coming. Is there any evidence of increasing fortifications?

10

Don’t get me wrong, I think the US would have preferred to go back in January.

I agree that it is already a bit late, but what is the option? Can the US really hold 250K troops in position for another six months to wait for summer to pass? At what cost (in real dollars, in opportunity cost, in morale, in public support, etc)?

I think the administration was wrong to build up the troops prematurely, but I also think the decision to go before this summer was made back in January, if not before. The only delay was the (failed) attempt at diplomacy, mainly driven by the possibility of getting UNSC authorization (which would have been politically helpful for both Bush and Blair).

In six months, NK could be pumping out enriched uranium into the black market. The NK situation has a short fuse.

11

Elvis, how are the sanctions to be stopped? Even France wants to “contain” Iraq. How is that to be done without sanctions, without control on what Iraq imports? Those sanctions aren’t going anywhere until disarmanent occurs or Saddam dies.

That’s the irony of the French position - more Iraqi civilians will die if France wins and there is no war than if the US wins and there is a war. 700,000 Iraqis have died over the past 12 years due to the sanctions, on UN estimates. That means around 16,000 have died since 1441 was passed. Add another 1-2 years of sanctions, and more will die if there than even the worst estimates of Iraqi civilian casualties I have seen.

That is the fact of the matter. You say that sanctions “can be stopped without war.” How? Give me a plan that has even a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, your position is by far the more bloodthirsty.

Sua

12

Ah, I like this reasoning… NK will provide materials for a bomb to the Iraqis pretty soon, so we have to go in before then.

That makes the threat seem more imminent at least.

I agree that the cost of hanging out is steep in lucre and politically. I think this is a strong argument (among those not categorically opposed to killing) for starting the war some time soon.

13

But also recognize that the cost argument is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we hadn’t built up the invasion force prior to getting UNSC authorization, waiting til next year would have been a reasonable option.

It seems to me the question of “Why now?” was more appropriate back in January than it is now.

14

There is no doubt that Saddam desires nuclear weapons. Saddam has desired nuclear weapons since he came to power. In 1976 Saddam received parts for a nuclear reactor from France. In 1981, just before Saddam’s nuclear reactor was ready to start up, the Israeli Air Force bombed the site. In fact, Saddam may have recovered enough nuclear material from the French made reactor to build one oversized nuclear bomb in 1990. Here is the link - http://www.rense.com/general18/sadd.htm As a consequence of the Israeli bombing of the reactor, Saddam’s efforts to gain enriched uranium went underground. So Saddam has the technological know-now to build a nuclear weapon for a while. He doesn’t have the fissionable material needed to complete the process. It’s not a matter of if Saddam gets a nuclear weapon it is a matter of when. Having a nuclear weapon makes Saddam instantly a much more powerful world figure. Saddam will use this new power to draw concessions from other nations, he will be able to deal with the 14.5 million Kurds in Northern Iraq as he pleases and he will become THE political force in the Middle East. Saddam’s history shows that he is a man who has no qualms when it comes to using WMD when he sees a net benefit to him. As a consequence, we have seen slaughter on a mass scale. If Saddam sees fit to use biological and chemical weapons on innocent people as well as belligerents, it is no big psychological step for Saddam to use nuclear weapons on the same groups.

The world is smaller today than it was sixty years ago. Oceans no longer protect us and nuclear technology will not disappear. Madmen, like Saddam, must be stopped from obtaining nuclear weapons. You don’t “stop” them after they have these weapons – it must be before

15

Absolutely.

Though there’s something to the argumen that SH got more compliant with inspectors as the waiting US army grew.

16

Sua, the UN sanctions can be ended by the UN voting to do so. No non-UN war will accomplish that, either. You’re not making sense.

And why, btw, are you calling it the “French” position? It’s the position of at least 7 of the 15 SC members, 3 of the 5 permanent ones, and much of the populace of the others. Have you sold out?

17

Absolutely true, but to no real effect. His “new compliance” will not have prevented invasion. And it is that troop build-up prior to UNSC authorization that pissed off the rest of the UNSC, preventing the chance for a second UNSC resolution.

Without the troop build up, he probably wouldn’t have been as compliant as he has been, and that may have increased the chances of getting UNSC support. Speculation, sure, but arguable.

18

Elvis -

When the UN sanctions are lifted, as you suggest, what do you propose should be done with the Kurds? Immediately - Who will protect them against Saddam’s well know taste for blood revenge? Latter on - How will Saddam be prevent from obtaining the nuclear weapons he desires? Leaving Saddam to his own devices is shortsighted and dangerous.

19

Several reasons

Sanctions were not working and after 10 years they were on the verge of collapsing, had Bagdad been able to have all sanctions lifted , their re-arming and re-starting of their chem and bio programs would have been measured in years , instead of decades.

Second , is that since 9/11 most of the worlds little countries have seen that its possible to attack the States directly , no response or a flacid response from any administration , would see an increase in the amount of terrorist activities on domestic soil.

Iraq , just happened to be ready made for a resounding assault thats going to be sound and fury , shock and awe , multi-divisional american extravaganza , that will scare the shit out of third world shit holes. So that any dream of attacking America stays in the fantasies of thirdworld angst ridden teenagers rather than having some bin laden type making active plans.

While the 9/11 was done by a non-state actor , the invasion of Iraq is going to show those who sympathize with the terrorist , is themselves going to see a price that has to be paid…

Back to Iraq

Besides the chem/bio programs , his delivery systems were enough to warrant a close eye. While that (basically model) Uav was shown on Iraqi television , getting it to be a functioning weapons system , is only an engineering problem, not a design problem.

His rocket program , basically the same thing. Making a rocket that goes 100 miles , is not so different from one that goes 10,000 miles , its just scale.

Right now every third world missile program is conscentrating on the scud missile for its basic frame. Going to a full up icbm is only a matter of years.

Declan

20

Since before 1991, Iraq has worked at developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. They have developed them (although they could not get a core nuclear device reduced to a size that was a managable payload), and in the case of the latter two, have used them. Much of this was done between 1991 and 1998 when inspections were ongoing. There is no debate in the international community as to the truth of the foregoing statements.

In September 2002, and actually prior to that as evidenced by his “axis of evil” reference in the 2002 SOU address, President Bush made a decision that Iraq, and more particularly that Saddam Hussein, posed a threat to the US because he has sponsored terrorism and his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons (and potentially nuclear) could be sold or shared with terrorist organizations that could use them against the US or other countries leading to a destabilization in the middle east and great loss of life to US citizens.

Originally, he planned to send the military and to end the problem without further discussion, but was convinced by Colin Powell (and probably Condaleeza Rice) that he shoud go to the UN. He did so, and Powell was promised by the French Foreign Minister that the French would support military action if Saddam did not comply with the mandate for immediate and unconditional disarmament. This was not true, as we now all know. By the time Iraq filed its report on December 10 (or thereabouts), everyone in the world knew that Iraq had not made a decision to disarm.

Bush would have been ready to go forward at that time, but reports were that Tony Blair needed a new resolution for political reasons. By that time, the French were completely recalcitrant, the debacle ensued, which brings us to now.

The reason we are going now is twofold. First, we have 250,000+ troops in the gulf region, and they cannot stay on alert indefinitely. Militarily, this is just not possible. Second, the weather is such that if we do not attack very soon, we will need to wait until next October or November. Even France has admitted that the presence of the US and UK forces is critical in the limited cooperation we have gotten from Saddam. We cannot afford, monetarily or militarily, to simply have that many troops sitting for an entire year while the UN debates about whether a drone should have been included in a speech, etc.

While some say Bush moved troops in too soon, there is no doubt that we would not have gotten even the limited cooperation from Iraq that we have gotten were it not for a present, viable show of force. We could not on one hand expect the process to work without a show of force, but on the other put troops in indefinitely.