Anti War Movement

The most recent thing I heard re protests was the big one on the mall in D.C. However, the other day I heard that the Pres was going to call up 250,000 reservists to active duty. Now this will cause some protest. These folks joined the reserve at the end of their active duty thinking that as "week end warriors" that is what we call them in the US they could use the extra couple of hundred buck a month to play war games one weekend a month. However, there will be hell to pay if and when they are called up since their fulltime military pay will not in most situations cover their actual living costs and leave there families in the learch. Then we will see how popular this coming war will be and how moved this country will be to support this president.

Walter,
I tried to get Eminem's video, but was not able.
I am discouraged by what I heard last night,
The Democratic Party realizes that Bush has
secured most of the hearts and minds to the War on Terror,
is now concentrating on the ECONOMY.
Instead of doing what's right.....
I would really like to see the video.
How can I see the video?

Walter, thanks for the link. That is more of a mine than a link. I think I could spend a day or two there.

The US press seems to leave the impression that Americans either want war with Iraq or are at least resigned to it or are acquiescent.

I am not deeply informed on all aspects of the likely war, but as I see it, we are going to face one of two evils. On the one hand, we can try to contain Iraq, as we did the USSR for so many years, while doing what is necessary to repair the damage we've done over the years in the middle east; and thereby reduce the appeal of terrorism among the Arab peoples. On the other hand, we can enjoy the pleasure of giving Saddam what he has been asking for, the almost certain result of which will be a long, treacherous fruitless occupation of Iraq. At the same time we will have aggrieved Arab peoples everywhere and given impetus to terrorism among many Arabs who had perviously entertained no such ideas.

It is always amazing to me that we enjoyed such a great back slaping victory over Saddam during the earlier Bush administration, but reaped such unexpected results. There was one man who resented our presence on Arab soil. It took that man ten years of hard work, but in the end, he managed to send four airplanes on a massive mission of death. So far we have not stopped him.

I cannot help but wonder how many years of terrorism and how many deaths from terrorism will result from the present proposed war.

Hazlitt,
The US public believes Bush.Blair believes Bush.Israel believes Bush,and goes beyond Bush in this Cowboys Vs. Indians drama.
The Israelis are the cowboys, the Palestinians the Indians.

Iraq is not a threat to anyone, but Iraqis.Hussein is just an ordinary, malevolent dictator, and not about to launch weapons of any kind.
When you push a dictator out, when there is NO REVOLUTION by Iraqis,when Hussein is pushed to his limits, then anything can happen.

Jeanbean, you get very little disagreement from me. I talk to a lot of people and am surprised at how many go along with Bush. I suppose it is the terrorism scare more than anything.

This is only conjecture, but I think that among the young voters coming into the population did not experience WWII and its aftermath, and they have a different perspective on foreign relations. They have a more cavalier attitude. Every two or three generations the young have no memory of the events from which their elders learned, and the elders are unable to recognize the ways in which the world has changed for keeps. There is always that tension.

Well, Jeanbean, i can't agree that Saddam is a threat to no one outside of Iraq. This by no means makes me a supporter of the Shrub's get Saddam policy. The Cheney administration (for that is surely what we've got) is aching to take down Saddam--they realized about 12 hours after the end of the Gulf War that they had screwed up.

As for Saddam not being a threat to anyone outside of Iraq, i would point out a few things. In 1978, the Israelis launched a very difficult air strike, with potentially grevious consequences to their relations with Syria and Jordan, to take out a breeder-reactor near Baghdad. They overflew Syrian and Jordanian territory, but they did it because the Mossad (a thoroughly evil crew, who are, nonetheless, one of history's premiere intelligence gathering agencies) had provided what their government agreed was iron-clad proof that Saddam would use a nuclear device on Israel if ever he got his hands on one. I don't think they were wrong, either.

Saddam is a violent, lethal lunatic. He got his first job with the Ba'at Arab Socialist Party by standing on a street corner, and pumping 9mm rounds into the car of the party leader. He didn't manage to kill anyone, but the party liked his style, so he got a job. By the time he took over, he had already manoeuvred his tribe into all the significant command positions in the army, and many in the government. His is a minority tribe government, as was that of Assad in Syria (ostensibly, the same party, the Ba'at Arab Socialists), and he has abused, tortured and murdered in Iraq as a matter of course.

During the Iran-Iraq war, he still continued to make war on his own people--and, of course, this pretexts for war with Iran were tissue thin. Basically, he was attacking Shiite muslims. I won't go into the differences between Shiites and Sunnis--the short explanation would require a couple of pages of post here--but suffice it to say that Saddam has long reconciled those Sunni muslims in central Iraq who are not members of his tribe to his rule by making the Kurds (ethnically different) and the Shiites (sectarian enemies) the monsters whom he holds at bay to protect all the good little Sunnis who go along with his regime.

The Turks consider him sufficient threat that they supported us in the Gulf War, even though their natural inclinations might have run with his. They have a militant and armed Kurdish minority, and have long considered northern Iraq as a "priveleged sanctuary" for Kurdish separatists--but they still consider Saddam enough of a threat to have allow us to use the airbase at Insirlik, and to continue to do so.

Nobody with an ounce of sense in that region has any doubts about Saddam or his intentions. Had we not gone to war in 1990, you can bet that Saddams pretensions would not have ended at the southern border of Kuwait, and the Saudis, Qataris, Yemenis, Omanis, Persians, Turks and Syrians know it. I am so often appalled by the gullibility of those who are anti-war in such matters (no slur intended against you Jeanbean). Saddam claimed Kuwait was the "19th province" of Iraq, and justified his attack on that basis. Many men and women of good will, but precious little discernment or historical knowledge in the U.S. bought into that crap. English merchants petitioned King William III in 1700 to send a mission to Kuwait. He was, however, involved in the run-up to what became the War of the Spanish Succession, and died before anything could be settled. Queen Anne agreed to send a mission in about 1703 or 1704. Iraq did not exist until Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour created it in 1922. Saddam is just as good at using "the big lie" as Hitler was, and it is always necessary to be very careful in the analysis of what he says.

There is a big monument to Saladin (Youssouf, whose name "Saladin" comes from the arabic for "peace to the faithful," i believe it should be rendered Salah' al Din) in Baghdad. This is gross hypocricy--Youssouf was a Kurd. Saddam of course, ignores this, and would deny it if anyone had the sand to confront him. But to the ignorant, resentful muslim, the crusades have never ended, and the west continues to attempt the conquest of the muslim world. Of course, if that were actually true, it would all be over, from a military standpoint, in a few years. Were we the monsters muslim militants like to paint us, the middle east would be in American/European hands, and most muslims exterminated. Saddam is canny enough to play upon that goofy sentiment, just as he used the code phrase "Mother of Battles" during the Gulf War. The "Mother of Battles" does not mean the greatest of battles, but means the battle which gave birth to all other battles within islam. In this battle, in the late 7th century, Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet, and the founder of Shiism, was defeated by the Companions of the Prophet, those from whom Sunni islam descends. By using the term, Saddam was saying that he was fighting to defend mainstream islam, and also suggesting that he stood alone, as Ali did, and might be defeated, as was Ali. It doesn't matter that he was mixing metaphors (Ali is considered a heretic by Sunnis), he knows propaganda well. He doesn't give a damn what the west thinks of his ranting, he's only concerned with muslim reactions.

I am opposed to this adventurism by Cheney and company, and appalled that so many people have confidence in the Shrub. That does not, however, mean that i will entertain any illusions about just how dangerous Saddam is. Think of Hitler with nuclear weapons, and you've got a pretty good image of the potential threat which Saddam poses.

Saddam also loves life. You have painted a good picture of him but neglect to explain why containment isn't prefferable.

In addition no mention to the fact that attacking him increases the likelyhood of him using WOMDs.

Also no mention of the fact that when he launched Scuds on Israel he could well have used WOMDs and didn't. Not that he is a nice guy or anything, but I think that's relevant because it shows he is concerned about retaliatory measures in such a case.

Any thoughts on the containment vs. back him into a corner issue?

In fact, Craven, this whole "let's finish the job we screwed up in 1991" movement on the part Cheney's administration worries me. Saddam heads a minority tribal government. Either he stays in power, or he falls, taking thousands with him. To even suggest among his followers that he would be willing to step down would be signing his own death warrant. I am very concerned that he is being backed into a corner.

I think, however, that you give him credit for too much sense in his attacks on Israel during the Gulf War. Very likely, he had no weapons of mass destruction available to lob at the Israelis. To simply have used mustard gas on them would have evoked a terrific response from the then allies, without much effect on Israel. Serious nerve gas was likely not available to him, as he had used it on the Kurds in northern Iraq from 1986 to 1988, and had also used it on the Persians during their war. He had no nuclear devices, of that i'm certain, because the Mossad has always kept a close eye on him.

He is politcally canny. He would not have used a weapon on Isreal which would have provoked his enemies and lost him the sympathy of muslim governments (the distinction between muslim governments, and muslim populations is significant) unless he could have been assured of wreaking great havoc on the Isrealis, and thereby gaining the sympathy of militant muslims. Saddam always attempts to walk a fine line--he must not antagonize other muslim states unless he can be assured of a groundswell of sympathy on the part of ordinary muslims which will immunize him from criticism by muslim governments. Am i making sense in that explanation, are you getting the distinction?

okbye

Yes I am, and you are right that he wouldn't have made much of a dint in the Israeli population but my point is one you reasserted. That he was aware of the consequences and for concern for his own safety he held back.

Even when backed into a corner I doubt he will lash at anyone other than massing US forces. And maybe not even then (due to lack of said weapons or capability to effectlively deliver them).

Here, i've not explained the dynamic well enough. Moderate muslim governments such as our allies in the Gulf War also walk a fine line. The Saudis, Qataris, etc. all act in good faith to maintain cordial relations with the west for the influence it gives them. The wealthy muslim states provide aid to poor muslim states, such as the housing projects Saudia Arabia has undertaken in Egypt for years. They wish to maintain good relations with the west, but must not antagonize the sensibilities of the "muslim in the street." Saddam also calculates his actions based on this dynamic. He must be able to appeal to that muslim man in the street with his actions to an extent which will neutralize the animosity he might potentially create in their governments.

Clear as mud yet?

That's a good point, his support for Palestinian families of suicide bombers is an obvious ploy to that end. He's trying to get the street on his side. He paints himself as the guy who thumbs his nose at "great Satan". One way I think the hardliners in our administration are trying to accelerate the war is by making him lose face.

By making it look like he's accepting defeat by accepting the new resolution he might just be vain enough to accept war instead. It's hard to be the thorn in America's side and their doormat at the same time.

Good point, Boss. It really sucks to be Saddam right now.

He should just appoint a puppet leader and fake resignation. Or just really follow through on his (likely) acceptance of the inspections.

But I doubt he has much of a chance to avoid war.

Setanta
Given your fairly accurate analysis of the current situation with Iraq and Saddams strategy what would you do in Bush's place.
Remember also that we did not have UN authorization to invade Iraq in 1991. Everyone seems so concerned that we now get UN authority to do anything---why is it that we were supposed to violate UN authority then?

What should we do now---appease him---contain him---or destroy him? What do we do Mr. President?

Preception, Regarding your question as to why UN sanction is so important this time around: As I see it, everyone in the world who is scared witless of dubya's Hollywood Cowboy approach to international affairs, including the new doctrine of preemptive war, jumped on the idea that he needed to get UN sanction and adopt a rational policy toward Saddam. They demanded this in order to slow him down, make him aware of the need for international cooperation and consultation.

They did slow him down, thank God, but I don't think he got the real message. For him, the process of attaining UN okay seems to be more of a PR ploy than a serious effort the seek the wisdom of our allies.

I too am waiting to hear what Setana would do if he were president. I'd especially like to know what he thinks we ought to do to better relations between the West and the Muslim cultures. It strikes me that Bush is relying on crude PR tactics and the threat of bombs. I can't see that working in the long run.

Hazlitt

Regarding your obvious dislike for the doctrine of "pre-emptive strike" I would like to ask you what you would do if you were in Mr. Bush's place?
Your options are:
1. Wait and hope Saddam really isn't as bad as we think.
2. Continue with diplomacy that hasn't worked for the past 12 yrs.
3. Seal our borders and become isolationist.
4. Wait and hope that the Islamic world really doesn't hate us
5. Hope that the other Arab countries will convince Saddam to stop being a bully.
6. Continue watching the Israelis bury their women and children killed by suicide bombers that are encouraged by Saddams payments to their families.
7. Conduct a strike at our option, at our choice of time which means that we have the element of some sort of surprise thus perhaps saving some lives of our service personnel.
8. Wait until Islamic terrorists provided with chemical and biological weapons by Saddam attack us on a large scale and perhaps kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans.

What would you do Mr. President?

Perception, I believe in a very tough doctrine of containment. I doubt that the risks here are any greater than sending in the troops and stirring up a hornets nest of terrorism, which I think would be likely.

I don't see that there is any really good plan for handling the aftermath of the war.

Also, things don't always turn out as expected. In many ways we have done a good thing in Afghanistan, but we seem to have simply moved the Talaban and Osama into Pakistan where they continue their operations, and are perhaps more difficult to reach than before. I say perhaps, because no one knows what may happen. We may capture them tomorrow. But right now, prospects seem a little dismal.

For starters, I think we can afford to wait a few days to see if Saddam is serious about adhering to UN sanctions.

If you were President , what would you do?

I have no idea what you mean by hasn't worked.

Hasn't worked as in he hasn't been killed by diplomacy? Sure he is violating UN resolutions (but earlier you dismissed the UN) he has, however, been contained. That is the point.

The question isn't about whether he is a bad man or not or whether Arabs hate us. It's about the wisdom of a pre-emptive strike.

Think about this, if Sadaam was to lauch a pre-emptive strike on us would he not be correct in assuming that:

a) we are a threat to him.
and
b) we are likely to try to kill him

My point isn't that Sadaam can or even should do such a thing but simply that what we think is right isn't always what others think. And flexing our muscles to enforce what we think is right (BTW I'm all for getting rid of Sadaam if done in the right way) how do we say Sadaam was wrong when he used his military to do what his warped mind thought was right?

Bottom line: If this is not done with as much legitimacy as possible it will simply look like a nation invading a nation. Hence the current fuss about the UN. This will have been an unprovoked invasion and needs as much legitimacy as it can get.

Remember that to some the whole question of WOMDs is a glaring hypocracy. We have WOMDs. We are able to decide who has them or not in most cases simply because we have the power to do so. But the rule of law is prefferable to the rule of "might is right".

I'm not too concerned about what could go wrong in this war. I'm worried about my country eroding the rule of law in the world by not seeking enough legitimacy for this invasion.

Hazlitt

What exactly is a "very tough doctrine of containment"? He has ignored sanctions because we know he has been selling oil on the black market with which he has built at least 55 palaces with under ground facilities for what ?
You can buy anything you want on the black market anywhere in Iraq.
We know he is trying desparately to obtain a nuclear device---wouldn't it be safe to assume that it's just a matter of time before some scientist from Pakistan, Russia, France or whereever, can't resist the temptation of few $million and helps him build one.

The way I understand the UN resolution just passed is that any "Material Breach" including any attack on any instrument of any member nation would be sufficient to go back to the Secuity Council and ask for a vote to attack. This means if they try to shoot down any of our planes in the "No Fly" zone this would be a Material Breach.

No fair asking what I would do---I asked you guys first)))))))))