The US, The UN and Iraq

guys

My sincere condolences regarding the shuttle crew.

Timber
What welcome news and what a coup for the Mousaud of Israel.

I think this will make it more relevant to the world-----You know ---since the world can not trust one word the US says)))))))))


Blatham
I know your condolences are sincere and they are appreciated at least by me-----it truly is a sad day for NASA, the USA and especially the families of those great people.

Asherman, I think you are wrong. Many will change their minds about going to war with Saddam 'after' proof of his WMD's are revealed to be true - including me. c.i.

Blatham

Those are two very well written and authoritative articles----does your sharing them with us mean that you are thinking about changing your position?

I sure hope so----you're too damn smart to be on the wrong side.

Thank you, blatham.


c.i., take a look at this:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=91980#91980



timber

timber, Thanks for the link. It seems other sources are also becoming available to show that Saddam is hiding WMD's. I don't think the wait will be very long. c.i.

timber

Been over there, thanks.

perception

I'm afraid I am far away from the war option yet for all the reasons mentioned earlier. Posted those links simply for information and viewpoint variation.

blatham, I'm also against the military option against Iraq, but they become the exception in this war on terrorism. They have lied enough to the world community, and we must cease this kind of nonsense from the world. The only way to accomplish that is to make sure Saddam is destroyed for not complying with UN Resolutions, and for playing politics with lies to the world about his WMD. Other countries will not play the same game if they knew the consequences. c.i.

blatham, Look at it this way; do we negotiate with hostage takers? No. Why? Because we know that negotiating with hostage takers only increases that form of blackmail. Some people will certain die, but without being hard on hostage takers, the war will never be won. c.i.

ci

I may write more tomorrow, but I've really covered the issues from my viewpoint. How did we get from 9-11 to 'sadaam's gonna get it'?

Though the focus of attention has been very effectively managed, the path of this single-minded drive to take Iraq is marked by elements that I fear may be of far greater negative consequence to the world than Sadaam constrained or removed by a tough and effective UN.

The US now is, and this is my opinion, on a quest for empire, empire newly defined for sure, but I think effectively the same consequences are likely to accrue. And I do not think the US is, under this administration or any administration, up to the task of benign dictator. I think no single state can be.

Further, I think this particular administration is likely to be very bad for the ecology of the planet, to do grave damage to liberty in your country if not further, and to place all of us into a situation where war becomes more common and world poverty no less common.

blatham, I agree with you on all points; however, and there's always a however, the term of any president is four years, unless they are voted in for a second term. I doubt very much GWBush will enjoy such. So, how does the US become any sort of "dictator?" c.i.

ci

(note: I don't write this to offend anyone, but you asked what I thought)

I think it considerably more likely Bush will get a second term. Perhaps Cheney down, Fisk as running mate...and against whom? Lieberman? Toss in the war-time backslapping votes...true, economy is for ****, but better the enemy you know...and Carl Rove...and the very well-organized and effective religious right...and a lot of other folks who believe in GW, like they did with Reagan.

That means six more years under the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz etc notion that the US ought to assume hegemony and prevent any other power from rising to challenge it, using pre-emption where necessary...well ok, who next? After Sadaam? North Korea now? Or are we done? Are we now unthreatened? What of Pakistan? Iran? And China...there's a doozer of a problem, hegemony wise. But it's what they have said. Iraq was item one. Ah, what the heck...perhaps they will change their minds.

And six more years means the Supreme Court goes you-know-where. And that means Roe v Wade has likely had it. There's likely to be continuing terrorism, thus internal security and it's mechanisms such as camera monitoring on streets, electronic monitoring online, BIG data banks, certain types of speech (perhaps such as this post) increasingly seen as abetting the enemy, etc....and your civil liberties will be 'strained'. Drug laws? Executions? More jails? More states pushing to ban sex shops? Your state will be run by a believing born again evangelist, and if you have to ask whether his faith will influence his policies for all of you, you just need to look to who he has already appointed and what he's already done.

This 'visionary' at the head of your country...is he up to the task? Well, not many would be....biggest gig in town...if you think of it, it's the biggest gig ever.

I think he is not. I have no doubt at all he will be sincere, though easily duplicitous when he knows what is 'right', and it is his sincerity most likely to cause the problems, as it does with Scalia or Susan Sarandon or did with the uni-bomber. I'd like to see some moral confusion in the man. If I could sit down with him and talk five minutes intelligently about one Shakespeare play, my whole notion of the fellow would change. Or three good minutes on the Azandi people of Africa. But I think his intellectual world is very small. And in complex times, the urge of governance is, or certainly can be, towards simplicity. And he will, unless he surprises me very much indeed, go for the simple answers because they...are his world.

When someone knows what is good for you, and they know it even better than you do yourself, then over-riding your objections is easily justified, if not morally incumbent. And I've not before seen such a pack of 'happy to over-ride' fellows together as these, even including Nixon and his boys.

That was a nutty period for America. Kent State happened. What sort of governments are scary? For me, it's the Kent State government...students shot on campus, Meese tries to bully the press, Nixon is whacko (those tapes!) and Halderman/Erlichman run the country, and the CIA are having their own kind of fun.

I think this administration could make mistakes like that, and now, as the incredibly powerful country she's become, those mistakes could be very consequential. Secrecy in government will, it looks certain, be of legendary calibre, in tandem with your reduced privacy. Bad pairing, that. And, what is to attenuate the two decade old rapid and growing division between wealthy and poor? And what of Ike's warning? What would he say about the situation NOW? The election last week in Israel showed the lowest voter turnout ever. So will your next election, almost certainly.

I wish a more pacific and democratic future for you than I think these guys might be carving out, at home and abroad.

I'm sorry if these sentences cause offence, I'd prefer to be wrong by a long shot, and I might be.

Something that has been debated many of time but never done is the suspension of elections by the President. This unPresident is capable of anything, to suspend elections because of "War" is not beyond him>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe GWBush is capable of everything you say, but he still has limits. Six more years is the max; what other nut will follow in his footsteps? c.i.

ci

Yes, he is limited. How much those limits are about to be redefined ("The congress is working against the administrative branch" the fellow told us a couple of months back) is the thing to watch. And like I said, I might be wrong.

BillW

I think that one would be over the top for all but the most enthusiastic pom pom wavers.

Blatham, There are a bunch of pom pom wavers now. There are already many, many incidences where it has been said that Bush wouldn't dare do "_________" - he did it with full backing of a disbelieving Rebuplican Congress. No, Bush would even stoop to this! (excuse me, he is already ready that low, one more thing won't be too much!)

Blatham,

I agree Bush will most likely win a second term.

I also agree with the notion you expressed that, in terms of political history, the "people who know what's good for you" and who are willing to compel you to do it, - regardless of what aspect of life it involves, or the individual freedoms curtailed, - are prominent among those who have caused much of the world's ills. I also note that in recent centuries this has been the constant affliction of the political left - not the right. I suggest to you that it continues in the political debate over most of the issues you raised.

The debate concerning Roe vs. Wade (and the appointment of Federal Judges) is not over whether abortion can be lawfully performed, but rather whether any reasonable restraint may be imposed on it by state governments, acting through their elected legislatures. A judicial fiat placed national policy at one extreme end on an issue that troubled serious people on both sides. I believe an objective view would conclude that Republicans argue only for moderation on this issue and greater freeedom for people to make their rules through democratic processes at the appropriate levels of our government. Similar arguments could be put forward on several of the other issues you cited.

It is an inescapable fact that any nation having achieved, by any means, the social, economic, and military prominence the United States now has, will find itself challenged by a variety of antagonists. It is in the nature of human behavior, and I don't know of any remedy for it. Those challenges come in the form of the behaviors of "outlaw" states such as North Korea and Iraq; also in the form of political action on the part of historical allies such as Germany and France, which would like to see us taken down a notch or two - or three or four; and finally in the form of new political formations which could seriously challenge us like the European Union. How should we handle them?

The historical behavior of such "empires" is to act to take out or oppose challengers with a priority set, not based on their actions, but rather on what they are capable of doing and their ability to threaten the empire's hegemony. Thus the British Empire willingly paid tribute to the Barbary pirates, while steadfastly opposing the ambitions of any continental European power that might challenge it.

The United States is not behaving in this manner. We have steadfastly encouraged the broad development of a European Union - even in the face of opposition from it on some issues. While we resist the specific actions of our serious political rivals to hedge us in, we do not consider or treat them as enemies. While we recognize that Iraq is but a piss ant as a challenger to our survival or hegemony, it does assault the stability and security of an important region of the world, preventing the wholesome development of other states in the region - and affecting our economic & political interests as well. We are treating Iraq as an enemy. We deal with France and Germany as the fractious friends we believe them to be. We look on the evolving European Union as a rival, competitor, and a friend.

You have several times suggested the United States is a new kind of "empire" seeking hegemony throughout the world. When confronted with the many contradictions in that assertion, you retreat behind the claim that a "new definition" applies. I would like to see that definition. On the contrary, I believe the United States is attempting to maintain conditions in which other countries can grow and prosper through their own actions, based on structures involving representative democracy, private ownership of property, and political liberty. Our actions in support of those goals are rarely perfect, often mistaken, and sometimes foolish. However the central tendency persists.

It is curious that you fault Bush for a lack of "moral confusion" but apparently ignore the stridency, even zealotry, of his critics. You have made several references to his "duplicity". Compared to what? The political leaders of Germany? France? the UK? Russia? -- Canada? Do any of them score better on your card? How about Bill Clinton?

I believe conditions in the world have moved several decades past the conditions to which many of your expressed views are relevant. Could disputes of time past be affecting your views of these issues today?

Scenarios are interesting and can be somewhat useful to decision makers. The downside is that too often they are based more upon wishful thinking, either optimism or pessimism, than upon careful analysis. Scenarios projecting events with a narrow focus and small numbers of variables over very short time spans can be extremely accurate Scenarios involving human organizations tend to be much less accurate, especially when forecasting complex events arising from sets having many variables far into the future. Scenarios, such as the outcomes of a military operation in Southwest Asia, are even more difficult to get right. Not all data necessary to good analysis is available, even to insiders. The number of decision-points is overwhelming and they grow at a geometric rate as the time-line increases. The bottom-line is that all outcome scenarios presented for this set are flawed, and probability for accuracy is low. Normally, I like a confidence level of 90% before heartily endorsing a forecast. Here that level of confidence is not possible.

There have been several scenarios already presented here. One forecast is that WWIII seems to suggest mega-deaths and virtual victory for radical Islamic fundamentalism. Edgar's scenario is, I think, more probable. So here is an alternate, rosier scenario.

1. Evidence damning Saddam as a threat to world peace will be presented to the United Nations, and made public during the week of 05FEB. The evidence will come from signals intercepts, surveillance photos, and from high-level Iraqi defectors. Some of the evidence presented will reveal materials (sources and means) that will compromise future intelligence gathering. Another UN Resolution explicitly authorizing military action will be introduced, but may be vetoed. The number of defectors will increase after 05FEB, though not all will be revealed to the public. The number of governments supporting military force will increase, though some will remain reluctant allies - especially in public. Saddam will deny everything, and there will be a number of executions of defector's families. Some agents for Allied forces will be discovered and executed. I expect some executions have already occurred, and the rate will increase right up to the fall of Saddam.

2. Military operations will commence, probably before 09MAR. The probable outcome of that has already been discussed in detail here. Items 1 and 2, I think are reasonably high probable outcomes, from here on the probabilities drop considerably because the number of decision-points and uncontrolled, even unknown, variables go way out there. The following are my best guesses, but they are strongly colored by my own biases and expectations.

3. Many, perhaps most, Iraqi's will greet the United States as liberators, but some die-hard elements of the Ba'ath party will remain dangerous. There will be several efforts to divide Iraq so as to create an independent Kurdistan, and a Shia Kingdom in the south. The Kurds have a better chance of success, but I think their efforts for independence will fail again. The Kurdish independence movement may become more unified, and outbreaks of violence and Kurdish terrorism inside Iraq, Turkey and Syria might increase. I think that if the Kurds go that route they will be making a mistake. The world may well sympathize with the Kurds, especially if local political conditions deny them independence. To utilize terror tactics would cost the Kurds world sympathy and hurt their cause.

4. I expect that an American Military Governor will be appointed, and that Allied forces will deter any efforts by Syria or Iran to encroach upon Iraqi borders. The UN will be invited to participate in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq into a more pluralistic State. Contingents from UN nations will supplement US occupation forces, hopefully sizable numbers of those forces will come from Iraq's neighbors having large Islamic populations. A new Iraqi Constitution will be drafted separating Church and State, and ratified by a plebiscite monitored by the UN. Oil revenues will be held in trust for Iraqi People and the rebuilding Iraq.

5. North Korea will continue to bluster, and demand direct talks with the United States. The North Korean nuclear arsenal will double according to Intelligence estimates. South Korean public opinion will become more pro-American as DPRK rhetoric and nuclear capabilities grow. American strength in theater will increase, and the American diplomatic position more deeply entrenched. The DPRK will back-down and publicly dismantle its nuclear program, while continuing its efforts in secret. The Korean stalemate will be allowed to continue. Kim will die, and his designated successor, his son will come to power. There will be a quiet period as the new Kim consolidates his power, and then he will begin talking peace and reunification. Some will believe him, but he will actually continue his father and grandfather's basic policies.

6. China will increase its efforts to exercise regional power. Chinese military forces will remain large, but there will be increased efforts to modernize. The Chinese nuclear arsenal will increase in size and capability. Chinese intelligence efforts will increase, especially targeting US military technology.

7. The ISI will lead a popular coupe in Pakistan. Incidents along the Pakistani/Indian lines will increase in frequency and seriousness. Open hostilities will breakout, and Indian forces will drive deep into Pakistan. A Pakistani commander will launch a tactical nuclear missile and India will respond immediately with a nuclear strike on the Pakistani capitol. The UN will finally awaken, and demand a cease-fire. Pakistan will immediately stand down, though India will be more resistant to "outside interference". The world will be horrified, and shocked. The international Peace Movement will be strengthened, and there will be a demand that all nuclear weapons be outlawed and destroyed. The Untied States and China will veto a UN resolution outlawing nuclear munitions.

8. Another terrorist attack comparable to 911 will be made on American soil. I expect the attack to be focused on a seaport, and that considerable damage will occur. The casualty count will depend upon the type, location and timing of the attack. Casualties could be very high, perhaps larger than at the Twin Towers. American sentiment for retaliation in kind will be very high, but it will be difficult to find a culprit. Syria, Iran, and other Islamic countries will be highly suspect, but they will deny it and proof of their culpability will be weak. Anti-Muslim sentiment will harden within the United States, and the Bush administration will be hard pressed between trying to protect our Muslim citizens and the demands that they be expelled from the country. It is possible that Bush will suspend Habeas Corpus, but that is a two edged sword. Internal security will continue and will generally be accepted and approved of by most citizens. The danger to individual liberty from security efforts to protect the nation from terrorist acts will continue to exist, but most people will not object strongly to measures that in the past would have set off a fire-storm of protest.

Items 3 and 8 could be wildly wrong, but I assess the probability three out of the six items will occur substantially as forecast is somewhere around 60:40, perhaps as high as 70:30. These are not hard numbers, only estimates and are arrived at by making best guesses at what I believe will be the most likely decision-points.

9. Bush will not be re-elected. Historically Presidents who come into office under disputed circumstances are unable to be elected to a second term. Cheney will not be on the re-election ticket. Rice will continue as the Shrubs closest intimate, and Rumsfeld will continue as Secretary of Defense. Powell may step down to pursue other interests, and could conceivably challenge Bush for the Presidency. The nation's economy will continue to be problematical. I expect the DOW to continue to swing drastically from a high around 8900 to a low of around 7600. The cost of the Iraqi campaign, its follow-on occupation and reconstruction, and the build-up in East Asia will be staggering. The National Debt will return to unacceptable levels, and the Democrats will focus their efforts on the domestic economy. The left will continue to argue that the Bush administration is/was imperial in nature. I don't think the Democratic candidate has yet emerged. Bush, categorically, will not suspend elections.

10. Bush will appoint at least one more member to the Supreme Court, but the Court will not agree with many of the Shrub's initiatives. The Congress will sink most other Bush plans. I'm rather confident of Items 9 and 10. Perhaps as much as 80:20.

11. Governments that have previously supported terrorists and provided sanctuary, will distance themselves from terrorist organizations. Iran may support Pakistan if a Pakistani/Indian war breaks out. Israel will continue to be a sore point in Middle-eastern affairs, but the number of terrorist attacks on Israel may decrease as material support for Palestinian groups dries up. I don't expect real peace in the region during our lifetime, but the size and seriousness of the conflict might be significantly reduced.

I feel the need to reiterate here that this sort of analysis is very hard to quantify, and must rest far too much on the analysts seat-of-the-pants art.

Right or wrong, the views and concerns put forth by blatham are widely held, and not entirely unjustified by past evidence. The US ignores such sentiments at her own peril. Serious attention and effort must be put to the matter of altering such perceptions. The doing so is America's greatest challenge, IMHO.



timber

timberlandke,

I agree. Consider all the energy I have devoted to illuminating Blatham.