The US, The UN and Iraq

I would add to Craven's statement that i think the war is both inevitable and unnecessary. I'm not gonna be happy so see this war under any circumstances short of a unanimous security council . . .

perception

I just know your name and can judge you by your responses.

I like irony/sarcasm as well - but actually this isn't the right place here, since I posed here something different, namely a link to the anti-war movement.

OK, first up, The "beeding hearts" comment I made earlier wasn't directed at anyone specific and not at anyone that has participated here. There are some out there though - I think we've probably all seem comments from them.

Next, I don't think it's the US that has made the UN irrelevant. If other countries don't want to follow through then they shouldn't be voting for these resolutions (I mentioned 12 earlier but it's actually 17 of them.). There is absolutely no point in voiting in the affirmative for a resolution if the country is going to refuse to back that resolution. The time to take the stand is when that vote call comes up. If a country isn't going to back it's vote then they shouldn't be casting that vote.

But.. Saddam is, and has been, pretty shrewd in playing his games. I don't think there will be a major war. I think he'll push things just far enough to incite a few minor skirmishes and then he'll back down and conceed. He's looking for sympathy from the other Arab nations and I don't think he's going to get it. Unless there is some internal take-over I suspect Iraq will become the new Cuba.

fishin',

I'd be the first to agree that a large part of any peace movement consists of people who under no circumstances want war. This is a naive view.

As to UN voting I don't think it can really be expected of other countries to stand up to the US. It was made pretty clear that the consequences would be ugly.

Furthermore most voted for the resolution to avoid the war not to support it. Even Syria voted in the affirmative. Everyone is hoping they can get Sadaam to feel isolated enough to comply. They are not in any way supporting the war yet. Immediately after the passage of the resolution most restated that tehy are vehemently against a unilateral war.

I don't think UN wrangling is as simple as it's made out to be. They passed a resolution for inspectiosn but they fear that the resolution is a "trigger mechanism" and the resolution doesn't mean that they see eye to eye with us on the war issue.

I think if Sadaam has half a brain he'd be able to get himself a cushy Cuba-like hold on power. And I think if that happens there is a good chance that the whole issue will die with him and the threat will not materialize.

But he is beligerent to a fault and he might just shoot himself in the foot. Wheat I'm expecting is:

1) They will lie in the weapons declarations.

2) We will take that as the trigger.

Craven
What is my take on: the dangers of setting a precedent of pre-emptive strike without international support.

It's my understanding from the news media(I have not read the
Un resolution) that the UN security council voted 15 to 0 in favor of the weapons inspectors returning to Iraq and they are to have absolute unrestricted access to any site. On the 8 th of Dec, Iraq is provide a complete list of what chemical, biological and nuclear material they have and the sites where these are stored. If that differs from the list that Hans Blitz(the Chief UN inspector) has, he can if he so chooses come back to the Security Council and ask for guidance or he can proceed to test Saddam by saying that these are the sites he wants to inspect immediately. He can also request to interview Iraqi scientists and anyone who might be involved in weapon creation. To insure these personnel aren't intimidated they can be interviewed outside the country but I don't know about their dependents. At any moment cooperation is not provided or obstacles presented this can be interpreted as a "Material Breach"
and the Chief Inspector can come immediately back to the Security council and so state. We are forced to place an enormous amount of trust in the Chief Weapons inspector and his judgement.
Supposedly the Security council would be called into session immediately and another resolution would be presented supposedly by the US and the UK that the order be given to take military action to force compliance with the UN resolution.
If that resolution is passed then the coalition would be cleared to proceed with war at any date after that. General Franks, the Centcom commander would then be cleared by the President and the heads of the other coalition members to proceed with a military strike
On a dark night of our choosing the air war would be launched at about 2 AM and there would be many simultaneous actions during the first few minutes of the air war. I won't list any of them because I might list something that will actually happen but I will say that we have 10 times the capability that we had during the last gulf war and now I'm talking strictly Air War. We will try to knock out every known storage area for chemical and biological war fare as well as known military targets. There will be no bombs aimed at civilian targets. The air war will be over in less than a week and then the Abrams tanks will be let loose. It is expected that the entire Iraqi force will retreat to Baghdad and take cover among the civilian population or surrender. I suspect the main Iraqi army to surrender leaving Saddam with a small loyal force to protect him but he will probably flee the country and then those people will surrender.
We will then occupy Iraq and install a military governor as we did in Japan at the end of WWII. The entire Iraqi population must be disarmed, including the Kurds and they willl be under the protection of the coalition foreces. We cannot allow what happened in Afghanistan, letting the war lords keep all their weapons.

The only real danger of this pre-emptive doctrine is when the next president does not have the will to use this type of power and we turn out to be a paper tiger. We live in a different world after 9/II, any leader can and will be assassinated by the al Queda if they have the capability. Flight 97 was headed back toward the white house when they were overpowered by some really brave people. WE now live by new rules and yes some our principles are being compromised but our way of life is threatened and I am proud to say that most Americans are ready to accept that responsibility.

Resolution Text

Material Breach is not included. It took 7 weeks to get that wording out of the respolution.

And there is nothing specified about the US having to return to the Security council for the go ahead. I suspect there will be an attempt but if it doesn't succeed the first resolution will be considered the madate and the operation will start.

---

And in short I strongly disagree with your notion that we live under new rules. And strongly disagree that we were ever a paper tiger except to the persons who wish we would wage war on every continent at the drop of a hat.

Let me ask a more pointed question.

Why shouldn't the other nations of the world stop being "paper tigers" and start preemptive action against their enemies?

Should China invade Taiwan to preemptively nullify the threat they percieve exists there?

Should India invade Pakistan?

They'd hate to be considered paper tigers you know. Shouldn't their leaders have the will to wage war against the percieved regional threats as well?

Craven

The answer to your"pointed" question is simple-----they know they might lose. They don't have the magnificent military that we have with the powerful tech advantage. The leaders of those countries are pragmatic people and if they think they might lose they won't take the chance and most countries have alliances with other countries so it would be war by committee. That is not the case with a psychopath like Saddam

I am sick to death of arguing this question. I believe Bush will not be happy without a war in Iraq, no matter the outcome of inspections. I just want my two cents to be counted as being 100% against it. I do not believe there will be a protracted war once it starts and I believe there will not be a huge number of Americans killed. I simply do not believe that we could contain the communist empires for decades and now are powerless to contain a two bit third rate power sitting in the desert like that. This is my opinion and I will now retire from the thread. Thak you all and good night.

War is not for children and other living things.

Peace.

The cynical outlook on the whole picture is that Bush and company (mostly Karl Rove) pushed for the war to overshadow the economic woes of the nation and pick up seats in Congress and the Senate. In other words, there really is no intent to go forward with a war -- just sabre rattling. I hope this isn't true because the worse thing that could happen is for Sadam
Hussein to read this as a bluff. He invaded a country over calling a bluff.
No, there wasn't the time nor effort made to take over Iraq in the Gulf War as the international doctrine for free, democratic governments is not to invade countries and build nations by force. Has that changed? It appears to by what we are doing in Afghanistan and it will be another twenty or thirty years before we know if that worked. Therefore, we really don't have any record of success doing this. It's a tough world and if we can't nogotiate peaceful settlement to problems like this, then we have no statesmen in our government, just military minds in civilian clothing. Army intelligence.

NOTE: I have split this topic from the thread entitled Anti War Movement. Thank you.

How great to read a civilised and reasoned political discussion! I have very much benefitted from reading these posts.

Speaking from outside the US I believe that I can confirm the presence of a groundswell of hostility towards the Bush administration over the issue of pre-emptive strike against Saddam and Iraq.

The idea of the most powerful country (I was about to write "empire" since I believe that US economic and ideological power over a considerable portion of the globe justifies such a term) on earth using its power - this time overtly - to launch a largely internationally unsupported "pre-emptive strike" is, it is felt, crossing a dark and murky Rubicon indeed - one that many believe, whether rightly or wrongly, was a decision made by this administration before it took power and long before September 11th.

My own government, for instance, which has been quite gungho in assisting in the invasion of Afghanistan - with the support, it seems, of a very large percentage of the Australian population - has found itself dealing with a very doubtful constituency over assisting with any invasion of Iraq, and has been forced to backtrack - at least in the tone of its communication with its own people.

The issues are complex and multi-faceted - and the rhetoric from your government is simplistic, jingoistic and, frankly, terrifying.

And use it you well should--our current administration, the Cheney administration, is certainly acting the military imperialist.



I don't believe my editing there does violence to what you've said. "Dark and murky Rubicon indeed," thank you for that. Craven has repeatedly tried to make that point in this and other threads, and those whose interest is to sneer at and belittle anyone with whom they disagree have resolutely ignored what he's written. Thanks, dl, for an extremely apt turn of phrase.

I could not agree more with your contention that this descision is entirely divorced from the appalling terrorist attack, and also completely agree that it antecedes that event.



This is so very true. Yesterday, Rumsfeld, without providing the least hint that he had any substantiation, commented that he would state that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The message there is clear--we goin' in, just 'cause we can, and we want to. I haven't the least doubt that dlowan, as well as all the others in our international constituency here at a2k, understand that we are not our government. Their doubts and fears are fully justified, and i can only hope that a growing doubt, expressed, within the American polity, will introduce some vague concept of the definition of the word restraint, and a willingness, however reluctant, to use that quality--on the part of Cheney's crew. Walter began this thread as a discussion of the peace movement. I responded with a criticism of the naivete often displayed in such movements (i know, i was a part of such movements in the 60's, and later served in the Army which those movements opposed), but i have consistently said that i think this whole thing is a bad idea--and that i also, saddly, think it is inevitable, given our current "leadership." (I hate using that term, there being a substantial difference between being led and being dragged along unwillingly.)

I would like to state, as succinctly as i may, that such a war won't be quick an easy. It's been shown that precision weapons do not produce results as advertised, both in the Gulf in 1990-91, and most recently in Aghanistan. A recent investigation has cast doubt over the reliability of the manufacturer of the batteries used in smart bombs. Both smart bombs and dumb bombs will kill many civilians, without their having been targeted. I will not believe anyone here who tries to convince me that he/she can state without equivocation that there is not any other possible example of the danger posed by the battery manufacturer in the "pipeline" of weapons and munitions from American AND foreign manufacturers which would make up our arsenal. It is only in a scenario in which the Iraqis cave in quickly and Saddam flees abroad (oh yeah? . . . where he's gonna go?), that we come out with "light" casualties. Have we got a grief and anguish meter out there, upon which we can determine that only "x" number of greiving mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents is an acceptable level of grief? Does any purport that those who lose their loved ones have a great cause to take pride in here to mitigate their sorrow? I won't believe anyone who tells me we do.

If that military collapse and Saddam's flight scenario doesn't kick in, we can look forward to some grim work. The contention that our air power is more massive now is nugatory--our strike delivery capacity will be considerably less if we cannot use MANY ground bases. Even in the event that an air war comes out as rosily as predicted, infantry still has to go in. It is the height of military hubris and stupidity to predicate operations on the basis of the least damage/best results projections of that operation--anyone familiar with military history know this, and know that the best of the military lot down through the ages, while not taking counsel of their fears, have not planned their moves based on a presumption of invincibility and overwhelming superiority of force. Charles XII did that in his war with Peter the Great, and it got him the destruction of the Swedish Army at Poltava, and the total loss of the large Swedish empire built up by Gustavus Adolphus less than a century before. It wasn't just Gallieni and the Paris taxi drivers who saved Paris in 1914 at the battle of the Marne--not Schlieffen and not Moltke, not anyone on the Prussian Imperial staff took fatigue, exhaustion in fact, to be the limiting factor of their operations. The French and the English had to wake Prussian and Bavarian soldiers up in order to make them prisoners. I can multiply these examples for pages, anyone who has read the historical posts i write knows that. If you doubt what i've written, look it up for yourselves. My point is this--we're being sold a military bill of goods, an imperialist "pig in a poke"--which is always the case when someone plans a military operation with "aw, they'll be push-overs" as the starting point for the development of that operation.

I'll say again, one dead American, one dead Englishman (and that's likely to be about the extent of the Shrub's "coalition) is too high a price.

Setanta
I can sense the hysteria level rising rapidly---it is an exercise in futility tp discuss in a rational manner a subject which is so controversial----especially with a group of people who hate this president with such passion.

Your point about the faulty batteries in the"smart" bombs would be a catastrophe because therein lies the success or partial failure of the first few minutes of the war. My scenario was based on the last Gulf war of course and on the surrender rate of the Iraqis. AS you remember before the war we were frightened witless by reports of Saddams Vaunted "Republican Guard" and on how we would substain very heavy casualties. We actually lost about 200 peope and unfortunately half of those were to "friendly fire".

Iraq will continue to be a "festering" wound in the Middle East along with the Paestinian problem. When you have a thorn in your finger, you remove it because if you don't your hand will soon become infected and if still nothing is done you might lose your arm or in the worst case you might die. The way I see it, our entire middle east policy depends on the removal of Saddam. If he is removed, the Palestinian thing can be resolved and Syria will not cause any problems because they saw what happened to Saddam.

Global Geo-Politics is our major weakness. We have been forced to "make deals" in the past with tin pot dictators which we have been soundly criticized for. The CIA has been forced to get involved in covert actions in attempts to remove some of these nasty people---these actions have often "back fired" because this type of action rarely has the intended result. Diplomacy is supported by all but as you have seen with past 12 years of Diplomacy with Saddam and with the situation in Palestine what has been the net result---"0". Diplomacy can only achieve results when backed by the threat of a powerful military AND the knowledge by the rest of the world that we have the "Will" to use it.

I apologize to Walter Hinteler for "Hi Jacking" this thread but I won't apologize for the things I've said because I tried to say them in a non confrontational way but I could tell from your comments Setanta that we were on a collision course because the level of Rhetoric began to rise rapidly just as it always does during conversations on this topic. Rhetoric is generally never useful, but it seems to be the major part of any forum. If I used Rhetoric I apologize to all readers.

BTW--I served 20 years in the USAF and I volunteered for Vietnam because to me Communism was a slap in the face and a threat to my country and the American way of life. I think we should stop apologizing for our involvement in Vietnam. Also it is not the fault of the US military that Lyndon Johnson, Robert S McNamarra would not allow us to fight the war to win----when we go to war, we should always go to win and that means to destroy the enemies capability to continue the war.

For anyone interested there is a book by Tom Clancy and General "Chuck" Horner called "Every Man a Tiger". Gen. Horner was the Air Component Commander during the last Gulf War. It very honestly tells how Air Power should be used.

Perception, I am hoping that in a more quiet moment you will think more deeply about what it means to sacrifice the founding principles of our government and way of life. I think the outcome is profound.

Also, I am surprised at the assurance you display in your comment about how we will take over Iraq and set up a military government just like in Japan. You fail to mention that this military government will be beset with the Muslim terror network not unlike Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Something that we never had to contend with in Japan. It is not unrealistic to imagine that these kinds of terrorism may be extended to the US.

The horror of is that it is all so unnecessary.

My responses partake of no hysteria. Rumsfeld has said, as of yesterday, i've heard the recording over and over from different sources, that this war "could last five weeks or five months, but no longer than that."

Think about this. Bush Sr.'s war lasted "100 hours"--that was their little public relations coup, to call it the "100 Hour War." Five weeks is 840 hours. Shall we expect, then, 1600+ casualties--based on your 200 casualties in the 100 hour war? Think further, Rumsfeld is speaking of the war as a done deal, not the least reference to his commander in chief, and none to the United Nations. When questioned about the validity of claims that Saddam does now possess weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said: "I'll say it, he has weapons of mass destruction." Nothing further, not the least reference to sources, or even a nod in that direction, to say he cannot disclose his sources. Let me think, how many votes did Rumsfeld get? Oh yeah, that's right, he was appointed, not elected--but he works for someone who was elected--and is, therefore, at least theoretically, responsible to the people for his decisions. I don't hate the Shrub, he's rather more to be pitied. I do despise Cheney and his entire crew. They have this all worked out, to their satisfaction, at least, and they intend to go in, regardless of opposition at home or abroad.

In 1990-91, we went up against a huge conscript army, little willing to fight in the first place. We fought them while they hunkered down in first world war style trenches. VII Corps had the Republican Guard on the ropes, and did not finish them off--at no time was there a full-scale armored exchange between the two. Schwartzkopf complained of the poor performance, the lack of tactical aggression, on the part of VII Corps in his authorized biography. The Gulf War will be no blue-print for any new war in Iraq. We will likely not have access to well-built, modern air bases on the ground in Saudia Arabia, Qutar, Bahrain and the UAE. Bahrain and the UAE have already stated that they will not let us use naval facilities for such a war. We can't throw air power at Saddam the way we did in Iraq. Afteraction assessments of bombing damage, btw, came to the conclusion that our hits were not nearly so many nor so accurate as published at the time the war was going on. If you had paid attention to my post, you'd know that i was making the point that planning on the basis of a rosey estimate is a recipe for military disaster. That doesn't mean i think we could lose, just that it will likely be a good deal costlier than we are being told, either by Defense, or supporters of this action on these boards. If you had read other posts of mine, such as in Craven's "Iraqi Questions" thread, you'd know that i've already pointed out that this would be a very different war, and that i've provided detail as to how i believe it would differ. I say this after more than 45 years of the careful study of history, military history included.

And i say what i do about the loss of life, having spent three years in the United States Army Medical Corps, from 1970 to '73. Regular Army, Boss, i was a volunteer as well. I don't think anyone in the world doubts the will of Cheney and company to make war--they, and those of us here at this board who oppose this action, doubt its wisdom.

BTW, when MacArthur stepped off a plane in Japan, unarmed, he drove to a hotel in Yokohama, and was offered a steak. One of his aides warned him against eating it. He replied that that was nonsense, and said it looked delicious. He then ate it with relish. The word got around quickly. He had first travelled to Japan with his father, Lt. Gen. Arthur MacArthur, just after his graduation from the USMA in 1901. He knew those people well. He showed no fear, he acted the conqueror. The emperor came to him. People bowed low in the streets when his car passed. He was the King of Japan during his tenure.

Don't try to equate the Middle East to Japan. And if, for any reaon, you got to Iraq, and you're offered a steak--don't eat it.

Setanta

Like most of your Rhetoric, your figures on losses during the last gulf war are wrong.
Total US battle deaths.............................................147
Total US Non-battle deaths......................................245

Unless you can stem your emotion and inflamatory comments, I will refrain from further participation.

perception
I am letting your rude remark about me pass without repercussions. Please don't get in the habit.