The US, The UN and Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/21/opinion/21POLL.html



"Iraqi Children" are not the target, despite the probably well-intentioned, though very poorly informed, wailings of the proponents of that straw-man argument against war with Iraq. The target is Saddam Hussein, his closest cronies, the Ba'ath Party, and the clear, present, and repeatedly evidenced threat they pose to the region and to The World. While there may be justification for "Inspection and Containment" in some instances, this situation has definitively and repeatedly shown it is not amenable to such benign intervention.

War is never a desirable circumstance, but it can be necessary. History is replete with examples of much greater, more horrific war arising from reluctance to undertake the unpleasant necessity of proactive intervention. Saddam has defied "Containment and Inspection", defied International Sanction, defied World Opinion, defied Human Decency, for a quarter century. Saddam inarguably is undeterrable, and therefore uncontainable. To continue the same demonstratedly ineffective measures in expectation of improved results is insane. Saddam and his insanity must be removed.

During the UNSCOM years, thousands of "Inspectors" on the ground in Iraq failed to sway Saddam from his crusade to achieve regional dominance and international stature. Today, hundreds of new inspectors in place of dozens of current inspectors, over a period of weeks or months, is proposed as an alternative to war ... a ludicrous proposition. There are risks and uncertainties in war. There are risks and terrible, inevitable certainties inherent to inaction in the face of continuing threat. Saddam has been a threat for most of a generation.

There is no greater terror than the terror occasioned by WMD. We have proclaimed ourselves At War With Terrorism. War is unpleasant, and forces difficult choices. The choice to threaten Iraq with war was not an easy choice, but a choice forced by the wider war in which we are engaged. 9/11, Afghanistan, The Phillipines, The Holy Land, and now Iraq (as soon may be The Korean Matter), will be seen by history to be but individual battles in The War On Terrorism, which itself likely will be remembered as WW III. There will be more battles, and a great deal of History is going to be made, throughout the globe, and its going to take some time ... and some lives. War is like that, damnit; that's why it is "The Last Resort".

I sincerely appreciate and greatly share the fears, concerns, and objections of those opposed to war. War is never glorious or cost-free. Often, the diplomatic consequences of a war are vastly more far reaching and disruptive than the immedieate physical and financial consequences, but regardless, there are consequences to war. I reserve my anger for those who have forced upon us the course of war, not for those who do or do not see a necessity to undertake war. I blame Saddam Hussein for the current divisions among long time allies and concerned, aware individuals, whether those allies or individuals support or oppose war with Iraq, as well as blame him and he solely for having forced upon us the course of war. We did not start this war. Saddam has chosen to involve himself in it, he was neither invited nor coerced into the present situation; he in fact has shown great initiative in pursuing the matter. Saddam has placed himself in the path of the accellerating juggernaught. The tragedy is that his having done so has consequences not only for himself, but for his People, his professed faith, and The World. I am very angry with Saddam Hussein.

So are lots of folks who can and will do something about it.



timber

"Saddam has placed himself in the path of the accellerating juggernaught."

Appreciate your point of view, Timber, and the clarity of its expression, but disagree, as you know. I quote the above because it illustrates for me the convolutions of the administration.

We know Saddam is a bad guy, is contained with all his badness in a monitored area. It's agreed that though he MAY have weapons which could harm the US, but he doesn't have the means to get them here.

Saddam is standing still. He's surrounded by inspectors, monitored by U-2's. He can't do a dang thing.

In spite of that, America has mounted the juggernaut: we are the ones who are deliberately inflating and exaggerating the danger he represents to us; we are the ones who are creating the tragic consequences "not only for himself, but for his People, his professed faith, and The World."

We will, of course, lie to ourselves and to others, maintaining it was all Saddam's fault. Children will die; it will be Saddam's fault. Oil fields will burn; it will be Saddam's fault. Lives will be lost in battle; it will be Saddam's fault. The blowback from the invasion is guaranteed -- and that too will be Saddam's fault. The blame game -- it's bigger around here than the Super Bowl.

All this is reminiscent of those people who bring suits against fast food companies for selling them food which they like and which makes them obese. Well -- come to think of it -- members of this administration also sold Saddam the weapons which we're now using to justify an invasion... Was that a clever move or what?!

Death of children is not a straw man - there will be many and they will die. The straw man is:



No one has claimed they are a "target" - but now, you have put up a weak argument to defeat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice try!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess the difference of opinion in this debate stems from whether you think the certitude that Saddam is a threat to the world is accurate.

And I note that Holmes did not seem to be suggesting that such certitude was always misplaced or mistaken.

Are we planning to use gas in a war against Iraq?

http://www.sunshine-project.org/

BillW, the point I was making is that "The Children", just as "The Oil", are mere components of the situation. I expect there will be tragedies and mistakes; they abound in war. I lay blame for this phase of The War, and all its attendant misery and tragedy, to Saddam Hussein.

I also expect that much justification for the US Position will come to light.

Reference an earlier query as to "Post-Saddam" Iraq:

To me, that makes sense. Whether it will work out according to plan is open to conjecture, but I believe that's pretty much the plan.



timber

blatham, I pulled up the Frontline site, but there is no link for a text reading. Where did you find it?

But you set up an very bad straw man timber. Oil and human life are not straw men and I take deep offense you anyone telling me so, especially when they set up a more offensive straw man to beat.

My number one reason to be against this action is it is immoral - and Bush et al have created hundreds of straw man arguments to go from PEACE to WAR. An immoral, intolerable situation!!!!!!!

It is about Oil, it is about Politics and it is about Death - 46.6% of them children -

Period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

to Bush and cohorts!!!!!!!!! He will cause the passage of the marker from Peace to War!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kara, The US may use Non-Lethal,Temporarilly Incapacitating Aerosols, such as common riot agents and perhaps agents similar to the anaesthetic used by The Russians in The Moscow Theater Incident. There likely would be diplomatic fallout if such agents were to be used, but the use of such agents would entail exponentially far fewer casualties, military or civilian, than would the employment of explosives, flammables, or projectile munitions, and thus be plainly more humane. Personally I would think the saving of the greater number of lives that otherwise would be at risk, as well as the lack of impact on infrastructure, would justify, if not mandate, the use of non-lethal force wherever practicable. Non-Lethals are just that: Non Lethal, and Non-Destructive.


timber

timber

If a gas is used, well, I do hope, some more will survive!

Oh, we're going to invade the country, but we won't hurt anyone. Aren't we nice.


Sorry, I have a lot of trouble wading chest deep through bullshit.

The pacifist opponents of removing the Iraqi threat to regional and world security predict that the war will be lengthy, with a high casualty rate among US and British military forces. We are told that swarms of Islamic "volunteers" will stream into the country to bolster Iraqi defenses against an inept allied military unable to defend itself, think Little Big Horn. They argue that during the first few days tens of thousands of children will be slaughtered by indiscriminate allied bombing. They insist that the whole of the Iraqi people will conduct suicide attacks against our military forces and the fighting will be from house to house. Saddam, purely in self-defense, will use unconventional weapons (that he doesn't have) against our troops. Iraqi missiles (that don't exist, and that would never be used) will cause the deaths of more tens of thousands in Israel, Turkey, Kuwait, etc. We will be responsible if the Iraqi oil fields are set afire, causing the world's greatest ecological disaster. Iran, Turkey and others will invade Iraq and engage allied forces in an attempt to seize for themselves the rich Iraqi oil reserves, and more U.S. soldiers will die by the thousands.

In the wake of the coming storm the Chicken Little predicts that occupation forces will be the continual targets of an Underground Resistance similar to that which existed against the Nazi's during WWII. The Allied military governor, we are told, will be the equivalent of Heydrich, and the leaders of the Ba'ath Party will be willing collaborators in enslavement of the Iraqi People. The Iraqi People will be left to scramble for garbage among the ruins. Existing oil contracts will be illegally broken, leaving the French and Russian economies in shambles as punishment for their "moral" stands against the war. American and British oil barons will be given full reign over Iraqi assets and everyone in the Bush administration will become rich from the pay-offs.

The pacifist argument is that the United States and the Western nations will no longer be safe from attacks by international terrorism. The peace loving peoples of Islamic countries will abandon their sympathy and tolerance for Western cultures, and become dedicated to our destruction. For the first time Islamic attacks will be made on the United States. 9-11 was, of course, carried out by American/Israeli Intelligence to justify destruction of the Constitutional Rights of Americans. Bush will use the coming religious war to cancel all elections, and install fundamentalist Christianity as the sole religion within the country.

Drunk with success, Bush will invade one country after another. France and Germany will be faced with an American invasion, if they don't immediately disband their military forces. China will be forced to choose between nuclear annihilation, and direct rule by a consortium of American and British corporations. The rest of the world will unite against the Great Satan and Armageddon is likely.

All right, I've exaggerated here just a little bit.

Those who reluctantly have come to believe that this war is necessary make the following claims:

The war will be short, and the casualties among allied forces will be far less than 20,000. Civilian casualties will be kept to the minimum, and will be caused more by Saddam's actions than those of our forces. The oil fields will be captured pretty much intact, though Saddam will try hard to destroy everything without regard for the consequences to his people, or the world. Unconventional weapons will be used against our forces, but they will be relatively ineffective. More Iraqis will die of Saddam's chemical, nerve and biological agents than allied soldiers. Most Iraqis will surrender quickly and regard our forces as liberators. There will be very little guerilla warfare even by those who would like to, because the Iraqi people are not permitted firearms because Saddam doesn't trust them. Some "volunteers" from the Palestinian population of Jordan may try to join Saddam, but the war will be over before they can enter the "battle". Kurds and Shia Muslims will actively join the effort to defeat Saddam, and will play an important role in the operation. Turkey may want a chunk of northern Iraq, but their recent behavior pretty much precludes any territorial gains for them. The Kurds are going to make a very strong case for an independent Kurdistan, and personally I think they ought to be listened to.

The Ba'ath Party will go the way of the Nazi's in post-WWII Germany. I'd like to see strong UN involvement in restructuring the Iraqi government, though the British and Americans will take the lead in peace as they did in war. No effort will be made against the Islamic religion, though Iraq will remain a secular state. I hope that US occupation of Japan after WWII will serve as a model, and that a new Iraqi Constitution written by Iraqi's under U.S. guidance will be adopted. Massive humanitarian food and aid will be available, and most urban Iraqi's will be better off than they at anytime during the last 12 years. The bulk of U.S. and British troops will be withdrawn relatively soon after the conclusion of the exercise.

Terrorist attacks will continue, but there will be no proof that the number or severity of the attacks would have been any less if Saddam still sat in Baghdad. The likelihood of terrorist attacks using chemical/biological or nerve agents will be decreased, though still possible. It may not be evident, but effective terrorist activity will be more difficult to carryon. Some nations that today sponsor, finance and arm terrorists may become less willing partners in terrorist operations. North Korea is more likely to scrap its nuclear program, and may become more amenable to negotiations.

At home the economy will become much more important than the military action taken in March of 2003. Bush will probably lose the next Presidential election.

Now there briefly are the two opposing ideas of what is going to happen shortly. There is a slight chance that U.S./British forces will be withdrawn without going into combat, but that is a very low probable outcome. Which of the two scenarios will actually occur? No one can be absolutely sure either way. Only time will tell. I believe, and hope the second scenario is the more accurate - I will be very disappointed if these projections are wrong. I hope that the pacifist crowd will not be too disappointed if their dire predictions fail to come true.

Excellent comments, all, but this particular section appeals to me. Yes, I like that idea very much indeed.

Bill, I just don't agree that it is about "Oil", or "Politics". I also do not see any reason the death of children is any different than the death of others ... all death is unfortunate. I expect there will be far less death, particularly among "Children", than some would propose might be the case.



Walter, as in The Moscow Theater, a majority of survivors is preferable to a majority of dead. Had The Russians not employed that gas, there might have been a few surviviors, there might not have been, but either way the human toll would have been horrendous. The Russians employed the gas, and though there were casualties, far more survived than otherwise would have.



timber

Tres,

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Those against our taking any military action in Iraq predict many aweful things will result. Seizure of Iraqi oil reserves to enrich American/British oil companies and the Bush family is a prediction that is often made. I was being a bit sarcastic by taking that notion just a teeny-tiny bit further. Some of the Left, especially the conspiracy crowd, might also argue that our intent is to "punish" the French for their "moral" resistance to the use of military force. If Saddam falls what will happen to all those lucrative oil contracts made with the Russians and French? The contracts will be worthless, but the United States will be accused of "illegally" breaking the contracts to punish the French and Russians for their "moral" stand.

President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar.

A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting
over there?"

The barman says, "Yep, that's them."

So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you
guys doing in here?"

Bush says, "We're planning WW III ".

The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"

Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 40 million Iraqis and one blonde
with big tits."

The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big
tits?"

Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says, "See, smart
ass! told you no one would worry about the 40 million Iraqis!

WWIII, better known as the Cold War, has already been fought and concluded. The thing is that every major struggle since 1945 involves the whole world. Every country, no matter how small or remote, is drawn into conflicts that a hundred years ago would have never been heard of outside their immediate region.

The current struggle, which began in the late '80s, may be WWIV, though perhaps not. The "war" on terrorism is a new kind of struggle that the world hasn't seen in modern times. The old definitions of what "war" is and how it must be fought may no longer be as clear as they once were. The rules of war that have guided us since around the time of Freddy the Great don't describe the sort of conflict we currently face. We live in interesting times.

Wilso...

I'd like to address a question to the pro-war group herein -- Timber, Asherman, Tres, and others who feel strongly about invading Iraq. Be assured I'm serious about this question and am sure you will have the courtesy to address it, to answer it -- not side-step it. Why is this important to us here? Because each side of this issue has, to some degree, demonized the other. As a strongly convinced antiwar person, I'll admit I'm sometimes convinced there are people who want war for itself, regardless of viable options, maybe for the drama of it, or maybe because though they're interested in the logistics of it to the exclusion of any considerations of casualties and "blowback" and other long-term political and social damage.

To continue the discussion of the US and Iraq, I think need to understand each other a little better.

So kindly answer my question as fully as you can and perhaps dispel the impression I've had that no rational alternative to war will satisfy you.

At the moment I'm writing, UN inspectors and a number of US ground troops are actually on Iraqi soil. The nation is being monitored by U-2 and other overflights. The assumption remains that he has WMD's and the ability to use them (to some extent), but we can see that for the time being he is not using them. He hasn't done so to date. At this moment, he really can't use them -- he is surrounded, contained, monitored. No more than we did a week ago, six months ago, six years go, do we see any verifiable sign that Saddam intends to go to war with us. Containment, in the way I'm using it here, means an impermeable wall around Iraq.

Given a serious, well-planned containment action, then, would you be willing to accept containment over war? Later on we might want to discuss what this containment might look like, but in the meantime the question remains, Would an effective, long-term (until Saddam is gone, the presumed WMD's disarmed), iron-clad containment satisfy you? And if not, why not? If you choose war over effective containment, can you justify it?

Please, I'm counting on you to take this well-meant question seriously.