The US, UN & Iraq III

Dys, what you call "imposing a government on them" I call "helping them to create a government". My guess is that ne'er the twain shall meet, so I'll leave it at that on that point. As for the statement I have highlighted (bold) above, how long do you want us to be in Iraq? Creating an entire middle-class from scratch would take how long? I think that this idea works on paper, but not in situ. As is always the case, we are forced to deal with the situation as it exists, not as we wish it were. The best we can hope for is that we can help them to craft a constitutional government that will, over time, encourage the creation of the educated self sufficient middle class I think we both agree they will need to be a prosperous, stable society.

Thanks for your courteous response. Mine was likewise intended, so if anything gives offense, please believe that it was not intended that way.

Steve wrote:

Bill quotes Wolfowitz in part:



I think that N. Korea would come trotting along behind the US if they were offered a large enough "compensation" package to stop their nuke program.

Dys wrote to scrat:



Dys, we can indeed do this, but first we must get order restored and the country running again , and the intitutions back in place. That will take years.

We should be really careful of breathing a sigh of relief and declaring, Oh wow, Wolfowitz is being candid and helpful to our understanding of the situation. No. Almost all statements coming from the admin -- and certainly the Pentagon and more certainly at that level* -- are calculated to have a specific effect, whether as a trial balloon, a deliberately misleading "message," or whatever.

*Rummy, at the top, has let his mouth run on wonderfully sometimes, though. He's definitely a loose cannon. But Wolfowitz? Nah. I don't think so.


Kara -- It seems to me that there's little evidence that our top priority has been to restore order in Iraq. You and I and a couple of high school kids might well have done a better management job than the current group, not because there aren't competent people there, but because their focus has been on Other Matters. I refer you to the Marine commander Lt Gen James Conway, whose statements recently have sounded a note of ragged honesty and frustration, and which in no way reflect the Bush/Fox view of "progress."

The arrogance gets the better of Wolfie quit often. I wouldn't over judge him.

You could be right, Bill, but I'm suspicious!

I think Bill has a point, after all, entia non sunt multiplicanda--but, then again, it's entirely possible that this is a trial baloon to see how candidate Bush might fare in an election campaign with the gloves off . . .

Even bet there, Setanta.

We see exactly what is happening, it is occuring overseas, away from the action and the media, as usual, is ignoring it!

a
You decide, would you go to war based on this October 2002 report?

Declassified version


You're welcome.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm#01

Interesting you should say that, Bill, because I was musing on the slight differences in shadings of perceptions re Wolfowitz and thinking, Hey, I don't have TV, can't see the body language, etc. Of course radio is useful, the Times does its job, and some background on those guys has been helpful too. But watching someone's face, how/when he crosses and uncrosses his legs during an interview, can alter or amplify an impression of what's happenin'.

"Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents..." I remember that was contested, disproved, Gelis -- and possibly a lot more.

However, they're just goddamn gooks 'n' we don't wanna get sennimennal about collateral damitch hey we need the oil so I say go get 'em and i don't care what the f**kin' peacewimps say okay?

a
Iraq

Since Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Baghdad has refused to allow United Nations inspectors into Iraq as required by Security Council Resolution 687. As a result, there have been no UN inspections during this reporting period, and the automated video monitoring system installed by the UN at known and suspect WMD facilities in Iraq has been dismantled by the Iraqis. Having lost this on-the-ground access, it is difficult for the UN or the US to accurately assess the current state of Iraq's WMD programs.

Since the Gulf war, Iraq has rebuilt key portions of its chemical production infrastructure for industrial and commercial use, as well as its missile production facilities. It has attempted to purchase numerous dual-use items for, or under the guise of, legitimate civilian use. This equipment-in principle subject to UN scrutiny-also could be diverted for WMD purposes. Following Desert Fox, Baghdad again instituted a reconstruction effort on those facilities destroyed by the US bombing, to include several critical missile production complexes and former dual-use CW production facilities. In addition, it appears to be installing or repairing dual-use equipment at CW-related facilities. Some of these facilities could be converted fairly quickly for production of CW agents.

The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) reported to the Security Council in December 1998 that Iraq continued to withhold information related to its CW and BW programs. For example, Baghdad seized from UNSCOM inspectors an Air Force document discovered by UNSCOM that indicated that Iraq had not consumed as many CW munitions during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s as declared by Baghdad. This discrepancy indicates that Iraq may have an additional 6,000 CW munitions hidden. This intransigence on the part of Baghdad ultimately led to the Desert Fox bombing by the US.

We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs, although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely. The United Nations assesses that Baghdad has the capability to reinitiate both its CW and BW programs within a few weeks to months, but without an inspection monitoring program, it is difficult to determine if Iraq has done so.

Iraq has continued to work on the two SRBM systems authorized by the United Nations: the liquid-propellant Al-Samoud, and the solid-propellant Ababil-100. The Al-Samoud is essentially a scaled-down Scud, and the program allows Baghdad to develop technological improvements that could be applied to a longer range missile program. We believe that the Al-Samoud missile, as designed, is capable of exceeding the UN-permitted 150-km-range restriction with a potential operational range of about 180 kilometers. Personnel previously involved with the Condor II/Badr-2000 missile-which was largely destroyed during the Gulf war and eliminated by UNSCOM-are working on the Ababil-100 program. Once economic sanctions against Iraq are lifted, Baghdad probably will begin converting these efforts into longer range missile systems, unless restricted by future UN monitoring.


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/bian/bian_feb_2000.html

And the last thing we wanted (want) was for the UN inspectors to go back in and verify -- one way or the other -- before invading that country.

(It was foreign intelligence, I believe, which raised the issue of the Al-Samoud missiles range when carrying cargo...)

X X X X X

There were some questions a few pages back about the origins of the word "bigot." I've got a lot of dictionaries including a 1926 edition of the OED -- pretty reliable, if heavy and dusty! -- and it traces it back to Chaucer but can't give a definitive origin. I just tried on Google and came up with what may be a credible origin: "by god." Usually people who believe god gives them special access to the truth are what we would call bigots, so I'm tempted to go with that interpretation.

It must be that nowadays history books teach kids that the War Between the States was largely about slavery. We learned that it was not, that there was a kick-in of self-righteousness in history to make us feel better about the fact that many people in the north didn't give a damn about slavery, were descendents of families who had built their wealth on the backs of slaves (even New Hampshire had had slaves), and that the war (from the north's point of view) was about maintaining economic and territorial equilibrium and hegemony. The slavery issue was a little like WMD's - it made for good PR.

Re: a

Yes, however I would not have waited until now to do it. Military action should have begun as soon as Saddam breached the cease fire. Had we taken action then, the waters would not have been nearly so muddied as they were years later.

Tartarin,

I suggest you reread some of the history surrounding the campaign that preceded Lincoln's first election as president. You can start with some of the Lincoln Douglas Debates. I suggest you carefully read Lincoln's "House Divided" speech. The key election issue was slavery and the secession of the Confederate states was a direct result of the election of the Republican candidate. Lincoln tried to emphasize that his war upon the South was only to preserve the Union as a way of mobilizing support in the North and particularly in the border states, however it is beyond doubt that the secession of the southern states was over the issue of slavery and little else.

There were many differences in the economic structures of North and South, however they would not have led to civil war without the issue of slavery.