The US, The UN and Iraq

Let's hope so, Steve, war is so expensive, and the Shrub and company have already done so much to torpedo prosperity for the majority while feathering the nests of a select few . . . anyway, war is so much trouble . . . i'm basically lazy, and the very thought wears me out . . .

perception, you say this about Blix? I thought maybe you meant George Bush...

Steve, I think we are indeed in the box-building phase. In fact, if we continue to contain Saddam and his regime, send armed inspectors and increase the force, gather wisdom and strength from around the world to build a consensus for a "containment" policy, we might be on the side of the gods, rather than just claiming to be.

No chance Kara - the War Mongers have won!

Tartarin

Very well said.

But it only goes to perplex me as to why Blair (a sincere and intelligent man of straight principles and moral conviction) goes along with this foreign family vendetta.

Somebody has something on him, they probably have a tape of him in bed with another man!

Kara

'fraid I agree with Bill, the box building phase is over. Quite passionate debate going on in the House of Commons. Pity its so irrelevant.

Steve, I think it was decided last August!

When the Argentines were in the thrall of their military junta, and those idiots decided to take the Malvinas/Falklands, our administration provided resupply and logistical support from the island of Ascencion (sp?) in the Atlantic. It helped that this was the Reagan/Thatcher era, but i suspect any American President would have reacted in the same way. American and English fighter pilots have been running the Iraqi shooting gallery together for more than ten years now. I cannot say what Blair's true motives are, but i would opine that the "special relationship" has kicked in with a vengeance. Perhaps Mr. Blair kneels at his bedside each night in Downing Street, and prays: "Please God, i don't wanna know . . . "

I cannot think of any other alliance in history which was so close and unquestioning, unless it were the Romans and the Narbonensii, and that was two thousand years ago.

Bill

Never thought of that. He's got several children, perhaps its time to try something new.

Just took an episode out of WWII - wasn't that an MI6 or some such incident?

Steve,

Though you've addressed your question below to Helen or Timber, these are a few reasons I believe we can't "just go on holiday".



* Our forces in theater are at near optimal preparedness to engage Iraqi forces, that "cutting edge" can not be maintained indefinitely and will begin to dull quickly. It is important that our forces be at "the top of their game" at the moment hostilities open. That will reduce casualties among our own troops, which is our first responsibility. Sending our troops into battle after their edge is worn away will also increase the likelihood of civilian and fratricidal casualties, as the number of accidents will probably be larger. Overwhelming force, lethality, and speed are essential to bringing the matter to a rapid conclusion. The longer the firing goes on, the greater the casualties and costs all around. Acting soon is our best chance at keeping the costs in lives to the minimum.

* An extended stay will exacerbate relations with host countries. It is neither cheap, nor particularly fun to have an army sitting around waiting to move. Our older British friends might recall the stresses they encountered under far better circumstances back in 1943-44. Kuwait, Oman, and Turkey are already under considerable pressure, and those pressures will only rise as time goes by. Having non-muslim soldiers living for an extended period may well become intolerable. If our forces are "fixed" in place for an extended period, the probabilty of terrorist attacks on them and their host countries would be very much higher.

* A substantial part of our fighting capability should not be tied up in Southwest Asia at a time when North Korea might break out into open hostilities again. Kim Jong-Il is taking advantage of the Iraqi situation to enlarge his nuclear arsenal. Threats from the DPRK have been increasing in number and tone for sometime. The Korean situation is going to have to be faced sooner or later, and Kim's actions may force a military showdown at anytime. The DPRK is without question a danger to world peace, security, and stability. The UN is going to be challenged again, and it could come at any time. Shifting our center of gravity from one theater to another takes time, and of course money.

* The cost in treasure and disruption of national resources in maintaining forces in theater would be ruinous. Logistics for such a large force is not cheap, and as time wears on the costs will rise. The society pay hidden costs by having part-time soldiers deployed for lengthy periods. The uncertainty of the situation is disruptive to the economy and keeps the stock market (an economic indicator) from stabilizing. The cost of fuel from the Gulf isn't going to become any cheaper by waiting. The cost of putting these forces into the field is already very expensive, and it would double the cost to reassemble them seven months from now. These and other costs argue for a swift conclusion.

Set

the Romans and the Narbonensii

who is who?

Thanks for the historical perpective btw

I thought it was us Brits (Greece) playing to you Yanks (Rome), (plea in the House right now to America to remember the words of your Founding Fathers)...now where was I?

War? What is it good for..?

well quite useful indeed if you happen to be George W Bush

Perhaps, Steve, it is Blair's sincere and intelligent straight principles and moral convictions which lead him, however reluctant an disappointed, to the the conclusion that it is time for action. Perhaps he does not buy the "Vendetta" argument, or the "Its About Oil" argument. Perhaps he sees those counter-arguments as disingenuous, spurious and venal, and perhaps he recognizes that Public Opinion, however well intentioned, forms from a base of emotion, conjecture and supposition in this matter, not from informed concern. Just maybe, Blair has no "Hidden Agenda", just maybe Blair is doing what he is convinced is 'The Right Thing' out of an overwhelming sense of responsibility to the benefit of humankind.

Of course, if after his political carreer he opens a chain of filling stations, or takes a directorship on the the board of a multinational petroleum conglomerate, then I will have been proven wrong.



timber

Steve

I found this piece from the London Review a plausible way to understand Blair's present actions... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n04/gear01_.html

And for what it may be worth (I'm not familiar with this source) a link was sent me on a Russian plan... http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=267

Tartarin, I just don't accept that this is an oil grab. In the overall scheme of things, that simply makes no sense. Now, if you are looking for a troubling ulterior motive, there is the fact that US plans apparently call for an extended, if scaled back from present levels, military presence "On Ground" in the region, affording significant leverage in dealings with neighbor states. An efficient and clean victory over Saddam and a US "Force in Being" will send a powerful message to all the players. I think that is more part of US motivation than any "Grab for Oil". In warfare, economic considerations typically are of far less influence than are strategic and diplomatic considerations.



timber

During our two-day old ice storm (what? go somewhere? drive? not a chance! roads closed! total mess!) this shut-in has been office-cleaning. Among the many startling "found" items is an EXTRA COPY of my favorite bumper sticker,

SOMEONE
ELSE FOR
PRESIDENT


I will donate this. Who wants it?

Steve, in the entire history of Rome, their first willing allies, and those who stood by them to the bitter end, were the Narbonensii. Think Provence, without all the frogs. They were Greek and Punic immigrants, who founded the city of Masillia, now known as Marseille. Go to this page The Roman Empire c. 120 CE and click on number 4, which is the "province" of Narbonensis. Technically speaking, the Narbonensii were never provincial, and the Romans granted them citizenship before anyone else outside of Latinium. Their "special relationship" was so strong, when the city held at first for Pompey, but finally surrendered to Iulius Caesar, he took no reprisals, and prohibited the traditional three-day sack which his legionaries thought was their right. You know, kinda like how we'll treat you guys pretty good if Blair falls from power and we're forced to invade for your own good.

Why hasn't anybody mentioned the fact that if Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons against our troops, our government says "all options are open" meaning we will use nukes. So in the event that Saddam does use WMD, we will also engage in using WMD. What was the purpose of the US war against Iraq, again? c.i.

Ash

I didn't say the troops should be left in Kuwait over the summer. Withdraw them now and think about other theatres where they could be more profitably deployed.

Timber

What is right? That's a good question, one that men have been contemplating er well since men have been contemplating... (oh and women too sorry ladies)

Timberlandko -- But I wrote: "So oil, yes; militarism, yes; imperialism, yes; but a powerful gut motivation should be acknowledged...", and the whole point of my post (and links) is that the personal interest of Bush is a significant (if not THE significant) motivation. That doesn't rule out oil, of course, but I'm interested you zero-ed in on oil as opposed to the other major personal Bush motivation: covering over some big Bush "family" messes.