The US, The UN and Iraq

LOL on representation of the panicky, Blatham! On the site posted for Tartarin you'll find an excellent article by admiral Stephen Baker (Rtd, USN). Excerpt from the section on what Saddam might do:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Target missiles on key Israeli cities in an attempt to evoke a horrendous response from that country and transform the Iraq war into an American-Israeli war against Islam.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Last time he fired SCUDs at those folks, the casualty rate was zero; ZERO. Nobody was hit. Maybe we should establish on thread a "panic-meter" coupled with the age-old query: "cui bono?" <G>

Let's make clear what the impending war in Iraq is not.

It is not a war to liberate the Iraqi people.

More than a few hawks are putting forth this fiction to soothe the sting of what war really would be: History's first instance of America choosing to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that poses little discernible threat to this country or our allies.

The liberation hawks were inspired by President Bush, who, in his State of the Union message, referred to an America willing to make a "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.''

This is breathtaking sophistry. We're going to liberate a population by killing them? How many Iraqi deaths have we decided are worth sacrificing for Iraq's freedom -- 500? 50,000? More?

It reminds me of the wicked line from the animated movie Shrek in which Lord Farquad tells the knights competing for the chance to rescue Princess Fiona from the fire-breathing dragon, "Some of you may die, but it's a price I'm willing to pay.''

The liberation claim is part of the convoluted stew of rationalizations that the Bush administration has cooked up to obscure what is nothing less than the abdication of the very principles of peace, justice and law upon which America was founded.

We've been told we're going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven't located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn't care about before Sept. 11.

Which is it? It doesn't matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above.

The Miami Herald

Tartarin

I'd read the Oz piece earlier today and thought it exemplary.

PDiddie

Your post above fits that adjective as well.

The below statement is intended to forecast a situation that is already self evident and therefore is reduntant rhetoric. The premise being that if the US would just exude more diplomacy, spread around more good will and MONEY the rest of the world would love us. When will you all realize that a nation must interact with other nations, first with the interests of it's citizens above all else, and with the realization that other nations will do the same. Within that frame of reality it is unrealistic to expect anything other than mere diplomatic encounters with potential enemies instead of the myth of friends and allies. Now is the perfect time to put forward France as an example of this reality. The US and it's citizens have provided more aid and assistance in every form and fashion, to France than to any other country on the face of the Globe. What have we received in return-----duplicity and myopic self interest.

Instead of trying to make everyone love us----Let's put the HAMMER where it will do the most good and stop worrying about hypocritical world opinion.


"An American war against Iraq, even if it ended in victory, is liable to heighten the sense of affront, humiliation, hatred and desire for vengeance that much of the world feels toward the United States"

HoT

When you return, could you steer this myopic fellow to the Baker piece you mention.

Actually, PDiddie, with the caveat that i am as opposed to the militaristic posturing of the administration as are you, you are incorrect to assert that this is:



After Tejas had "achieved it's independence," Mexico basically took the position that the Republic of Texas did not in fact exist, that it was a rebellious portion of one of los Estados Unidos de Mexico, and that any attempt at annexation by the United States would be a war of aggression. To the extent that the capture of Santa Anna at San Jacinto, and his "ransom" by means of an agreement to acknowledge Tejano independence was repudiated by the Mexican government, their position had merit in international law. Although there was not a formal body of international jurisprudence at that time, there was a concept of the "Law of Nations," and it was recognized by the United States--the evidence is in the use of that exact phrase in one of the clauses of Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution.

When Polk encouraged the application of Texas for admission to the Union, he knew full well what he was about. Zachary Taylor was sent with a small force of professionals (a good account of this is in Grant's memoirs, he being a newly-minted infantry officer then) to the region between the Pecos and Rio Grande, which was a concious provocation. Thereafter, the predictable Mexican attack on this force was the ostensible casus belli. In terms of dead, wounded and missing as a proportion of total forces committed, this was the bloodiest war in which we were ever involved. But hey, we got Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California--hmm, wonder if it's too late to give it back.

Polk was justifiably vilified by his political opponents at the time, and his strenuous efforts to assure that Winfield Scott would not be able to capitalize on the war in a bid for the presidency actually cleared the ground for the election of Zachary Taylor. Mexico posed absolutely no threat to the United States, even after the admission of Texas. The disputed strip of land between San Antonio de Bejar and the Rio Grande could easily have been dealt with by negotiation and purchase. But then, we could not have stolen all that real estate from them.

There are other instances as well, including several attempts to conquer and bring Canada into the Union. The annexation of Hawaii is another.

I sit corrected. I will dutifully notify the Herald's opinion writer of your correction.

All of which once again reminds me of that wonderful comment that Senator Hyakawa made in Congress during the Panama Canal debates: "It's ours, we stole it, fair and square, i say we should keep it." But, of course, we aren't out to annex Iraq, just their oil . . . er, i mean weapons of mass destruction.

PD - just put "modern" in the equation!

Setanta

That Hayakawa quote is a wonder of wit and honesty, isn't it. In turn, it reminds me of a statement by the newly appointed dean of an American university (in the fifties) who said that his goal was to make the university an institution that the football team could be proud of.

Remember the Maine.... which turned out to have been an accidental explosion.

Interesting developments here in the past few hours ... Broadcast News is just now breaking mention of Iranian Military Presence "On Ground" in Northern Iraq, and much play is being given possible "Escape Plans" perhaps being considered by Saddam. As there has been no pickup of the item from Stratfor about the German Biologic link, that probably comes to nothing ... something which happens all the time in the world of breaking news.

European governments are pulling their nationals from Iraq and the region, heavy leaning is being done on Turkey, Syria and Jordan are moving forces around, and apparently the US and The UK are feverishly wording a proposed "Next Resolution". Developments are sure to come rapidly over the next few days, and there will doubtless be unfounded rumors, and unwarranted assumptions will be made. By Friday Feb 28, the situation will be fully formed.

There is strong indication irregular or paramilitary forces in the region are planning attacks on Saudi oil assetts, other regional governmental infrastructure and on US assembly areas. The actual shooting war may already be very much nearer than many suppose.

Oh, and Stratfor's server has been overwhelmed today, and defenselink and a few other "Hard News" sites have been slow ... lots of folks are watching lots of things very closely.



timber

I don't follow Stratfor.
But, when someone sells a three days old notice, which was corrected officially two days ago and that was printed the day before - well, if all "hard news" is like this ......

All of our media in this country is troublesome currently, Walter.

Thanks for the link, HofT, but I failed! Couldn't find the Baker article. Land line. Probably a great article. Have used that site before, but not for ages. Will try again later.

A kind of sociological question here, if you'll allow the digression! I'm willing to bet that the division between "Let's put the HAMMER where it will do the most good and stop worrying about hypocritical world opinion," and those of us who believe that's immoral or suicide or both, is a difference in age and education. In fact, if it isn't too off-topic or inflammatory, I'd love to hear some discussion of the huge differences of opinion about the administration's foreign policy and -- most important -- where those individual beliefs and viewpoints come from.

The world matters to me. I take everyone's opinions with a grain of salt but I even so I listen to the world. My firm conviction that we should NOT go ahead has to do with having had teachers and professors who never assumed any particular nation was on the side of the angels. There was no "America first" attitude in any discussion of our relations with the world in school or college. Also my conviction has to do with having lived in a world which has been under threat seriatim. Once you've seen the politics of aggression play out, once you've realized that more often than not the war-mongering presidents and legislators of the day were later discovered to have had bad information or bad motives or were playing games for political and/or personal gain, you tend to examine them VERY carefully before allowing them a free hand with foreign policy and weaponry.

There's something else. In America we tend to think we can solve problems swiftly and we get very frustrated when there's a problem out there which requires patience, fortitude, negotiation, partial failure, occasional little successes. Patience and negotiation, lately, just aren't "our way." When you combine American impatience with religious zeal and/or a "my way or the highway" attitude, you get REAL trouble. The Bush administration, though I can't be sure whether it's positively the worst presidency in our history or not, I know to be damn dangerous and stupid. But those who are still in their twenties and thirties, for example, have grown up in a different American culture, a culture which regularly produces horrendous and violent "quick solutions," fictional and real -- see for example Columbine. We KNOW we are too violent in this country -- probably the most inherently violent nation still considered "civilized." We KNOW that but we think of violence as a problem with our movies or our rap songs and street people, and of course justifiable when we're up against "demons" and "evil" (so labelled by us). These are internal socio-cultural problems that sooner or later we'll have to deal with. But we can't wait for that maturing process now. We have to stop a leadership which has a level of sophistication and bad attitudes not at all dissimilar to those of the kids who walked into their high school in Denver and killed their schoolmates. The Columbine kids, too, saw demons and evil and a world which they thought didn't take them seriously enough, didn't respect their "power."

Bottom line: The administration is asking for trouble, big time. The world sees this. Why can't we? And for the record: Idealism doesn't always work, but sometimes works well. War never has.

And lots of disinformation from the specialist!

I certainly hope that reports that anyone has sold smallpox virus to Iraq and the DPRK are wrong. Use of the smallpox virus in a military application might be difficult, but if it were to get loose the resulting world-wide epidemic could easily become worse than the Spanish Lady, or the Black Death. Smallpox released in Northeast Asia might easily spread to Japan and thence to the whole world. China's population might be reduced by as much as 250,000,000 people. The death toll in Southeast and Southwest Asia would similarily high. Actually, the death toll in the West where smallpox vaccines are more readily available, and there is a better medical infrastructure, might not exceed 10% of the population. Smallpox is very nearly the proverbial Doomsday machine, and should never, never be within the grasp of rogues like Saddam, Kim, or Bin Laden.

Over the years, I've found Stratfor to be a reasonably credible source. Irregardless of the source, confirmation from multiple sources is required. Generally news media reports are suspect.

I think we can expect a number of movements over the next few days. The clock now is down to days, three weeks at most. I expect that we will have special forces on the ground soon. Is Iran jumping the gun? That could precipitate action sooner, rather than later. I think we have to expect attacks on our forces in the region, and on Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi assets as the time to act draws near. The probability of an terrorist attack on American soil will remain high for at least the next month.