The US, The UN and Iraq

Timber: Here are the two (shocking, to me) sentences in question: "To remove the troops would entail a similar cost to putting them there in the first place. That amounts to doubling the cost, with no return on the investment...."

The implication to me is that there's no point in withdrawing troops ("no return on investment"), no acknowledgement of the obvious "return" in lives saved. That, to me, is plenty "return on investment." Now, perhaps Asherman didn't quite mean what he wrote.

If I seem combative you, it's the subject matter. There's little if any justification for war, and even less for the cold, arm-chair soldier's reckonings of strategy and political convenience I've seen expressed here. Those two sentences above may not be among the worst, but they are pretty bad.

while not being the brightest bulb on the tree i do own a few firearms and i am pretty sure its possible to unload a gun without firing it.

Unfortunately, this kind of confusion only strengthens Saddam's resolve to ignore all UN resolutions. On the other side of the coin, it strengthens our democratic form of government by allowing discourse. Ultimately, the strength of democracy is more important than Saddam's criminal behavior. c.i.

From The Guardian:




If this is a "well appearance" of the British PM, I really wonder!

Walter, Blair won the vote by 393 to 199, very nearly a mathematical 2-to-1 victory ... not exactly a "Squeaker".

In a related matter, Parliamentary Approval of the "Final Warning", passed 434 to 124, an even more substantial Blair victory. There is division there to be sure, as there is in the legislative halls of The US. It appears, however, that there is more support for intervention than opposition to it.

Perhaps the headline "Blair's Setback" is a bit of agenda-driven editorializing as opposed to objective reporting. Blair won his point, perhaps to the dismay of the pundit authoring the article.



timber.

Timber

Might well be that you know more about that.

Tartan,

I meant exactly what I said.

Removing the troops without changing the circumstances that prompted their deployment would be doubly wasteful. No lives would be saved, no destruction averted. Quite the contrary, as I pointed out a bit further down in that post.

Sumac,

The question of containment has indeed been talked about here a number of times over the last 350 pages, or so. I've addressed the "containment" arguement several times in the last few weeks, and haven't much more to say on the issue as it stands. Though it is a bit of a chore, going back and reading over those 30+ pages is worthwhile.

Walter, I'm not inclined to see 2-to-1 and 3.5-to-1 affirmative votes as "Setbacks". There is dissent, but a clear and substantial majority supported both propositions. Blair has much yet to do, but it would appear he is doing it. It may be noble to say "It's not winning, but how the game is played which matters". It is pragmatic to recognize that the point of playing the game is to win. Blair won this game, as I see it. The series isn't over, but Blair continues to be points-to-nothing ahead in the scoring. A strong play on the part of the opposing team comes to nothing if the result isn't a goal for them. Blair has scored the goals so far, regardless the finesse or flash of his play.



timber

Ash, and others, re containment:

I thought as much, but with dialup connection in slowish computer, I am far too lazy to go back. Therefore, I have formulated the question anew in a separate thread. If it is seen. Would appreciate the views of those of you who have strong opinions about the topic.

Timber

Thanks anyway for your strong support for a socialist Prime Minister!

(The conservative paper's headlines are like :"Huge defeat for Blair", so I really feel good with your responses!)

[Watching tv and typing in a "foreign tongue" at this time of the night produces a lot of typos!]

sumac, I fully believe that containment is the only human and sensable way to go - however, the war mongers have won out - Bush will battle regardless. You can just catch their glee in these last few pages on this thread. The cowboys have won, but there is a political and human price to be paid that will be substanstial (as well as financial)!

Bush to Cast War as Part of Regional Strategy
In Speech Tonight, President to Portray Iraq Effort as 'Battle for the Future of the Muslim World'
The planned address, to the American Enterprise Institute, is part of an intensive administration effort to defend a prospective invasion of Iraq. Bush will present an optimistic portrait of how events could unfold if he chooses war. The speech will emphasize a broader U.S. campaign -- part of what Bush calls a "battle for the future of the Muslim world" -- that will last far longer than military hostilities in Iraq and test the United States' already difficult relationships in the region.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2442-2003Feb25?language=printer

Victory Without a War
by Robert Kuttner
AS AMERICA'S Vietnam expedition was becoming a quagmire in 1966, Vermont Senator George Aiken famously said that we should ''declare victory and go home.'' The war, of course, dragged on for several more years, and North Vietnam won. A third of a century later, Vietnam is a quasi-capitalist country, cultivating US investment, consumer markets, and tourism. If only we had declared victory and gone home in 1966, we might have spared countless American and Vietnamese lives. History's ultimate shape would not have been different.
At the time, ''staying the course'' in Vietnam, however foolishly, was posed as a test of American credibility. Who would follow the lead of a superpower who tucked tail and ran, as Lyndon Johnson liked to put it?
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/057/oped/Victory_without_a_war+.shtml

Two points -- Note the change (bait/switch) in administration policy from "Osama only" to "Saddam only" to "battle for the future of the Muslim world." And remember how Johnson felt like a ruined man, after a ruined presidency, as a result of his persistence in Vietnam.

Do not despair, BillW. The cowboys haven't won, nowhere near!

Thanks Tartain, I needed that!!!!!!!!!!!

i do take offense at the consistent description of Bush etal as "cowboys" Bush is not now nor ever been a "cowboy" he is a new englander. Cowboys are honest hard working men and women with integrity. pppppffffffffffffffftttttttttttttttttt.

IPS Releases Report on
U.S. Arm-twisting Over Iraq War
Full report in .pdf format - Download free .pdf reader

(Washington, DC, February 26, 2003). As U.S. officials intensify their arm-twisting offensive to gather support for a war on Iraq, the Institute for Policy Studies is releasing a new study today that examines the specific levers of U.S. military, economic, and political power.
The study, entitled "Coalition of the Willing or Coalition of the Coerced?," looks at how this leverage applies to each current member of the UN Security Council. It also analyzes the power the U.S. government exerts over the broader group of countries that the Bush Administration has dubbed the "Coalition of the Willing." Although the Administration refuses to release a list of the members of this coalition, the authors compiled a list of 34 nations cited in press reports as supporters of the U.S. position on Iraq.
Major findings:

· Although the Bush Administration claims that the anonymous "Coalition of the Willing" is the basis of genuine multilateralism, the report shows that most were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery.
· The pursuit of access to U.S. export markets is a powerful lever for influence over many countries, including Chile and Costa Rica, both of which are close to concluding free trade deals with the United States; African nations that want to maintain U.S. trade preferences; and Mexico, which depends on the U.S. market for about 80 percent of its export sales.
· The populations of the countries in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" make up only about 10 percent of the world's population. Opponents of the U.S. position currently include the leading economies of four continents (Germany, Brazil, China, and South Africa).
· President Bush could make or break the chances of Eastern European members of the "Coalition of the Willing" that are eager to become members of NATO. In order for these nations to join the military alliance, Bush must ask the Senate for approval.
The authors of the 13-page study include: IPS UN and Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis, IPS Director John Cavanagh, and IPS Fellow Sarah Anderson. According to Bennis, "It's hardly a new phenomenon for the U.S. to use bribes and threats to get its way in the UN. What's new this time around is the breathtaking scale of those pressures -- because this time around, global public opinion has weighed in, and every government leaning Washington's way faces massive opposition at home."
http://www.ips-dc.org/coalition.htm


...From the available evidence, namely the accounts of those with access to senior administration officials, President Bush gave his approval for the initiation of advance planning for a war with Iraq at some point following the 9/11 terror attacks, and certainly before his "axis of evil" statement in February 2002. By the spring of 2002, newspapers were reporting that the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), General Tommy R. Franks, was well advanced in early preparations for a war, and was meeting regularly with senior Pentagon officials in Washington to develop the basic plan of attack.... All last fall, it appeared that U.S. diplomats led by Secretary of State Colin Powell were in agony over the slowness of deliberations at the U.N. Security Council. But while there is no doubt that Powell genuinely sought international backing for the attack, he was never quite as anxious about the pace of events as he appeared to be because he knew that the fighting could not begin until February 2003, at the earliest. It is only now, with the onset of battle but weeks ahead, that Powell is truly concerned about the tempo of diplomatic action, struggling now to obtain a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force before the troops commence their attack.
Clearly, it has been the pacing of U.S. war preparations and not the political environment at the United Nations that has shaped administration strategy over the past few months. Until now, the White House has been able to conceal this underlying reality because so many eyes were focused on developments at the U.N. headquarters in New York. Once the fighting begins, however, the outright cynicism and deceitfulness of the U.S. strategy will quickly become apparent, further turning world opinion against the United States. http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7315

I've no doubt that there are many here who will rush in to deny what you've posted, Boss. For my part, thank you, we need this sort of information to be public, and a part of the debate. I see a growing desparation in this administration at the thought that it will not get its way internationally as it always tries to do domestically. To me, this brings to mind the Florida election boondoggle--winning at any price, even if its eventual result is to undermine the nation.

Dyslexia -- You're right about cowboys, kind of, though it needs to be said that horses aren't part of the scene anymore. The guys on my land use little ATV's and computers and when it's time to call the cattle, they sit down by the gate in their truck honking their horns. The cattle charge over the hill like puppies, hoping there will be new treats for them in the corral. Surprisingly, the "cowboys" also sometimes turn up in Lands End and Eddie Bauer jackets, just like W on his Crawford ranch! It's as well to remember there never was a John Wayne, either!!