The US, The UN and Iraq

There are many tyrants in this world today that are treating their citizens in less than human ways, and many are dying. It's a concern for all of us, but it's not justification to preempt a war with those countries. If anything, we should help with food and medicine. We are doing very little to contain other tyrants and the suffering of their citizens. Why only Saddam and Iraq? c.i.

PDiddie, judging from troop and ship movements announced today, I would say Late February/Early March. A lot of boots and equipment have to be moved into Turkey, and that is just beginning. Five major Combat Support ships, Very Heavy Freighters, left San Francisco today, a British Flotilla is just now under weigh, and several Air National Guard In-Air Refueling units have been placed on call-up alert. An approximate 200,000-strong US presence in the region will be about the limit of the buildup. It will take us perhaps a bit less than two weeks to acheive that, then perhaps another week to fine-tune placements and battle plan.


Stay tuned. Who knows ... maybe Saddam will quit before his position is eliminated.



timber

I expect hostilities to open between 20FEB and O9MAR.

Iraqi aggression against it's neighbors resulted in the Gulf War, and that war stopped conditionally upon Iraq divesting itself of certain weapons. Iraq has not complied with the conditions, nor honored its commitments. Instead, the evidence clearly indicates that Iraq has continued upon a course of action threatening to world peace. The armistice is over, and soon the war itself will be concluded. When a convicted murderer violates their parole by carrying concealed weapons and consorting with criminals, no one should cry foul when the SWAT team takes the miscreant into custody.

I don't understand the hysteria and fears that the coming action will result in the end of the world as we know it. MAD (mutually assured destruction) is a concept that does not apply here. Iraq and the DPRK are threat that dealt with now can greatly reduce the cost in lives later. These rogue regimes are not going away just because of misplaced pacifist sentiment.

If the world ends by Autumn, I'll be the first to admit being wrong. But then again, I'm not a gambler.

Asherman, We are all aware of Iraq's noncompliance with UN Resolutions to stop the war, and of UNR1441. Even with this knowledge, most of the people of this world does not want the US to strike Iraq with a preemptive strike. When you try to relate a convicted murder's violation of parole with that of Saddam, the big difference is that the police can nab that one murder without collateral damage in 99 percent of the cases. Striking at Saddam means killing innocent Iraqis before the fact. We all know Saddam has possession of WMD's. Let the inspectors find it to show Saddam is a liar, including all his henchmen. That will justify war for many who are in doubt today. c.i.

[timber - as far as I know, Russia isn' t future member of the EU. (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, plus the Associated Countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.)]

C.I., when the tyrant deals only with his subject, such a behavior should be treated by means of embargos and other economic and diplomatic sanctions. When the tyrant starts "exporting" his regime or prepares to do that (Saddam tried at least twice, starting wars against Iran in 1979 and against Kuwait in 1990), then he or she is to be stopped; maybe even by means of massive foreign military intervention. I have never seen any of the A2K anti-war activists condemning President Clinton for his attack against Yugoslavia. And Milosevic was much less dangerous than Saddam: his ambitions did not refer to any of the territories beyond the historic Yugoslavian borders (I mean, borders of Yugoslavian kingdom or Tito's republic, these include Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Serbia; Kosovo was nothing more than a district in the latter republic).

"I was strongly against the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, against the American interventions in Nicaragua and El Salvador, for military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo, and for the war against al-Qaida in Afghanistan, all on good liberal grounds." Timothy Garton Ash in The Guardian from Thursday February 6, 2003.

I agree completely to this - and mostly all of the complete commentary as well

In defence of the fence


I strongly doubt that being against a war in Iraq under mometarily conditions has anything to do with Anti-Americanism or (steissd implicates this obviously) anti-war activism.

Good post Walter, and good article by Tim Garton Ash.

Over a year ago I heard it said that Bush had "in principle decided on war with Iraq". I distinctly remember writing something on Abuzz saying (to Sailfree I think), if you attack Iraq "you are on your own".

9 months ago Bush said in a tv interview (with ITN reporter Trevor MacDonald) that it was "the policy of this administration to remove Saddam". When asked how? he replied "wait and see".

Last summer a White House source said "we'll make him an offer he can't accept".

Now I don't doubt for a moment that Saddam is a tyrant, nor that he threatens the middle east. But he doesn't threaten this country. The WMD issue is an excuse, not a reason for war and as pdiddie points out the logic of insisting someone proves a negative is a nonsense. Moreover whilst the inspectors are in place, Iraq is not capable of threatening anybody. Their numbers should be doubled or trebled until Saddam gives up his WMD or he forces them out of the country. If he did that, and if the UN passed a further resolution explicity authorising the use of force, THEN AND ONLY THEN would I support an invasion.

The fact is the timetable for war has been set months ago, and Powell's show yesterday at the UN was not designed to convince the security council because Bush has no intention of abiding by its ruling if it goes against his pre determined policy. It was merely a propaganda excercise for public consumption. The fact that we in Britain are going along with this charade is embarrassing, or it would be if it was not a matter of life and death for possibly hundreds of thousands of people (estimates of gulf war 1 dead range from 146,000 to 256,000) besides the risk to our own servicemen and women.

Well stated--what we are seeing now is the Ashcroft style being writ large, internationally . . .

steve and setanta, thanks.

You saved me the trouble of saying all of that. We are the leaders of the free world. If we insist that the inspectors stay there for a year, even if only to buy time, (what's wrong with that?) there would be little objection. I heard yesterday on NPR -- no way to credit its truth -- that there was a whole back-stage drama going on at the UN, that we were pressuring other nations, threatening loss of aid and worse, if they did not support us. We do not want an open forum; we want to rule. To me, that is pure politics and has nothing to do with saving the world from Saddam.

Hello, Walter. Good to see you here, with trenchant comment as usual.

Back later. This is turning into one of the better discussions on A2K.

It is sad to see the USA turning the moral high ground over to China - <sigh>

Kara,

Well I hope it is one of the best - It is certainly the longest.

Steve,

I fully agree with your analysis of the Bush Administration's likely intentions & behavior. I also agree that a continued regime of sanctions and inspections will almost certainly contain Saddam and prevent Iraq from doing great overt harm to her neighbors or anyone else.

However, I do note that, before Bush came on the scene, there were no inspectors. Saddam had kicked them out and the UN did and contemplated nothing to reverse that act. Moreover there was active discussion in the UN about ending or easing the economic sanctions - and there was active support for that among the Western European nations & Russia (and also active evasion of them by the same parties). The path forward was fairly clear. Saddam without inspections and with all that oil revenue could indeed be a serious problem.

The only reason we today have sanctions and inspections in Iraq is the direct and proximate threat of unilateral US/UK intervention. If that threat were to be removed, do you believe the sanctions and inspections would continue until Saddam departs the scene? Do you believe the resulting suffering of the Iraqi people would be justified?

george

That's the good argument and the one I think holds the most promise for the future.

But it doesn't have to tilt very far over to become a big negative. If the motives for intervention are other than the sort which Ash talks about in Walter's great link, that is, if the motives are self-interest or economic interest trumping pluralist and humanitarian interests, then we're in for it. It is unclear whether this administration really believes in the UN or whether it will simply use it when advantageous/necessary.

Blatham,

Of course self-interest is involved - and equally among all of the countries involved in this debate.

On another thread you made reference to Isaih Berlin's views on liberty and freedom (they are hardly new: such concepts were addressed by Edmund Burke in the 1790s and by Roman critics of Plato two thousand years ago). Surely you don't wish to impose a neo-liberal orthodoxy on the world and judge the decisions of other governments, not by their effects, but rather by the motives you presume guide them. Shall we institute the thought police for individuals?

The UN is what it is. We deal with it as it is, not in terms of some ideal of what some would wish it to be. I believe France and Germany - perhaps even Canada - do the same.

Earlier I commented that North Korea has missiles able to reach as far east as Alaska, and that Okinawa was well within reach. Hot, now presumably out of touch, suggested that I recheck North Korean missile ranges and accuracy (page 194 above). That was really a good suggestion since I haven't looked into the matter in well over a year. What I found was not significantly different from what I remembered.

The principle missile that we know to be deployed is the Na-Dong-1 and 2, with a theoretical range of between 1000 and 1300 km (all of Japan and north-east Asia). The inventory is between 30 and 100, and most are probably Na-Dong-1. Though the Na-Dong-2 may be slightly more capable, it has been in production for a much shorter time. The CEP is believed to be between 2000-3000 meters, though that may be refined using GPS technology to something around 50 meters. The standard warhead for this missile is HE, Chemical and VX.

The Taep'o-dong series are longer range missiles with theoretical a reach between 1500 and 6000km. At 6000km the Taep'o-2 is a long-range missile and might strike anything from Alaska to the northern tip of Australia. The Taep'o-1 is an intermediate range missile with a probable reach of up to 2000km (all of East Asia, but just a bit short of Alaska). Some analysts believe that the TD-2 will be capable of delivering a small warhead as faraway as Phoenix, AZ. These multi-staged missiles are either still in development, or are deployed in very small numbers. There may be as many as 15 TD-1 missiles, and probably less than 5 of the TD-2. Technical data on this series is much less refined, because they have not been extensively test launched. In 1998 North Korea made the only test launch of a TD-1, which fell into the sea beyond Japan. No test launches have been made of the TD-2, and they may not be operational at all. Component testing of both vehicles has been observed, and Iran has probably has also done some testing of both the TD-1 and TD-2 components. No probable CEP can be estimated from the available data at this time.

Fitting a nuclear warhead to the Na-dong series may present some difficulties, but is at least theoretically possible. Known design specifications for North Korean nuclear bombs may not be accurate.

Several times at this forum, i've read statements by many posters to the effect that the United Nations is irrelevant. The United States makes this so--years of negligence in our participation there have wasted many, many opportunities to make a useful partnership with the U.N. To many of the diplomats accredited there, it appears that the U.S. only shows up when it wants something, and that the something desired is an endorsement of a policy already determined upon. Politicians for more than a score of years have derided the United Nations, and cast vicioius slurs against that body; small wonder, then, that it be considered irrelevant by Americans. Once again, we have made it so. A long-term cultivation of the United Nations could produce a world body able to take up its responsibilities at the side of the United States. In many instances, the United Nations has provided peace keepers who have operated effectively without U.S. participation. U.N. peace keepers have operated side by side with the U.S. as well, and they helped to pull our special forces out of the trap in Mogadishu in 1993--but we don't think about those things, because, after all, it is largely viewed as a political football here in the U.S., one for which a kicker is usually called upon to score.

I've just re-read a piece from the New Yorker of last October...I'd totally forgotten it, yet it is perhaps the most relevant and poignant address to precisely what we are talking of now...I highly recommend this (though not the New Yorker site, it is the same article in full)... http://middleeastinfo.org/article1522.html

George

It may well be that the only reason the inspectors are back in is because of our threat. But sanctions have never been stopped, only refined and targetted somewhat since they were introduced. I really don't see what the problem is in keeping the inspectors there to quote Adelai Stevenson "till hell freezes" if necessary. It could even justifiy relaxing sanctions somewhat as we have people on the ground who can could check where every suspicious bit of hardware ends up. All in all there is no justification for war NOW. But we all know its coming and I have to conclude it is purely for the personal and political prejudices of one G W Bush.

It is the UN that is keeping GWBush and company at bay. Without the existence of this body, GWBush and company would have already initiated the war with Iraq. It's still doing it's job, and we must hope that some peaceful resolution will come out of this. As I've said many times before, we cannot strike first. Threat in and of itself is not justification in a just society. c.i.

c.i. "Threat in and of itself is not justification in a just society"
well, yeah kinda like Grenada?