The Iraq Questions

May I recommend this worthy piece ...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15984

Here's more of William Pitt's cogent analysis:

Stories are being floated in the international press indicating this push for war will be centered around a summertime engagement. This will be difficult in the extreme - the heat in Iraq is oppressive in the summer, and our troops will be expected to fight in MOPP gear (gasmasks and protective clothing) that will further exacerbate the man-killing temperatures. In fact, the months between April and August are brutal for soldiers and machines. February through March is mud season, making mechanized warfare extraordinarily difficult. The best window of opportunity falls between September and January...

The last war was fought in the desert. This time, Hussein is preparing his troops and defenses for urban combat in the streets of Baghdad. All the super-technology in the world will not help us in a knife fight, and the five million civilians in that city will feel the hammer. American casualties in that kind of fighting will be significantly higher than anything the American populace is willing to accept, and the smashed bodies of Iraqi civilians will be broadcast via regional television to the entire Mideast. The detonation of rage from this, at home and abroad, will be unprecedented...

There are approximately 65,000 troops in the Gulf region today; another 25,000 will be shipped over in the next few weeks. If the war becomes a bloodbath in the streets of Baghdad, more will be needed. Considering the slow, brutal attrition rate suffered by the soldiers from the last war, it stands to reason that this war will inflict the same damage to our troops. Even if they survive the war, they stand at least a 28% chance of coming home ravaged by a disease the government refuses to acknowledge exists...

Iraq is a clear and present threat to everything America holds dear. This is what Bush and his team would have you believe. They'd have you believe Iraq could cripple our economy, as Bush described a few days ago... Iraq has no proven weapons, no proven missile technology, and has allowed the UN weapons inspectors to go everywhere and do everything they please..

...Terrorist connections to Saddam? He's in cahoots with al Qaeda and Osama? That would be remarkable, considering the fact that Hussein has been viciously repressing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq for thirty years. If you proselytize for Wahabbi Islam in Iraq, that sect which is practiced by al Qaeda and Osama, you get shot. Period. Osama and al Qaeda have said many, many times that they want to see Saddam dead. So why would Saddam give them weapons? He is nothing if not a survivor, and he could conceive of better ways to commit suicide...

The fact is that we may be at war by the end of the month... The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq are due to report their findings on January 27th. Bush is giving his State of the Union address on the 26th. In the intervening weeks, we will all come to see in how much esteem Bush holds the international community. If he declares war before the inspectors report their findings, things will get wild in a hurry.

War in less than 30 days

PDiddie, Your conclusion that "War in less than 30 days" follows the thinking of our media. That's the hope of this administration to prepare us for war, but I don't buy it! GW has not proved in any way that Saddam is a danger to his neighbors or the US. Until he does so, I'm skeptical of GW's rhetoric. c.i.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/magazine/05EMPIRE.html

You're right c.i. My intuition tells me that Saddam is an immediate threat to the rest of the mid east, and a potential threat to the world. That is good enough for me, of course, but in the absence of proof, I have to keep a little skepticism.

roger, If "potential" is reason enough for a preemptive strike on anybody, we can't complain too much if other countries strike at us first. Can we? c.i.

Well, we have been struck first. I just don't happen to think we've found the culprit.

Don't let me throw you off the track, c.i. I still believe Iraq has these weapons, and needs to be disarmed. I'm just saying that in the absence of more proof than we've seen to date, it is less likely to happen than many of us seem to think.

roger, I'm not talking about our war on terrorists. I'm talking about a country such as Iraq, North Korea, or Iran. The terrorists are an entirely different problem, because they hide in many countries including ours. c.i.

Ignatieff has obviously given much thought to that article, blatham, and done some homework. I think he rightly includes Israel/Palestine as among the considerations this adventure forces upon us. I can't wholly buy is New Empire theory, nor do I fully accept his assertion that the proximate cause of Rome's demise was her overextension.


As to Rome, administrative difficulties resulting from the size of the empire were difficulties of communication in largest part; the Romans did not have a Satellite-Based Global Communications Network ... it took months to move information, let alone men or material, from one side of the empire to the other, and weeks to do the same from the fringes to the center. Rome collapsed because of corruption, a failed economy, famine and pestillence due to climatic change, and indifferent attention to its military. Fall of Rome


In another particular, I believe he posits a more effective and cohesive Iraqi Military than is the case. I just don't see a major urban warfare scenario, with massive US casualties, as being in the cards. He does address the Post Saddam Iraq, but again, I have a somewhat different view; I doubt American Oil Companies will make a grab for Iraqi Oil. Oil is fungible, neither it nor The Market cares whose well it comes from or whose pipeline or tanker it travels in. The French certainly, the Russians probably, and quite possibly The Dutch and The British will own The Oil Companies, pipelines, and tankers that pump Iraq's oil into the World Economy, in my opinion.


Such things as Empire, Colonialism, and Hegemony simply no longer apply. Today's world is a very different place than it was half a century ago, changed much even in the past quarter century. The Globalization of Business has created a new paradigm, and we have yet to realize, let alone understand, the implications. Rome was an Imperial Power. So were Spain, France, and Britain, each in their own way. The US today is not merely "A" Superpower, it is "The Only" Superpower. There are no more empires.


I believe The US Leadership to be honorable, principled people, not seeking the glory and riches of war for personal gain, but rather willing to accept the danger and expense of war in recognition of our unique ability and attendant responsibility to protect and provide for the peace and prosperity of the planet. I don't hold them as saints, in fact I take issue with much of The Administration's Policy both at home and abroad. However, as I continue to maintain, I see the matter at discussion here in this thread one of unpleasant necessity brought on by moral obligation.



timber

Timber, Your forth paragraph says it all for me! Today's world cannot be compared to past history and/or empires. This country is not out to colonize other countries for our own benefit. Those countries of the past that have done so have now relinquished it's colonial control. The most recent breakup of Russia, the new economic organizations such as the EU, and the changing face of the UN, all speaks to a different world. I don't find this discussion necessarily unpleasant, nor a moral obligation, but I do find it fascinating. c.i.

Let me clarify, c.i., I don't find this discussion troubling; in fact I am enjoying it immensely. I am deeply concerned by the issues being discussed.



timber

Timber,

As long as you're talking I can remain silent. Thank you.

Asherman, thank you. High praise indeed. I must say I am far more comfortable to share a point of view with you than I would be to debate a difference with you. You have my respect, sir, and my admiration.



timber

Hear, hear, same here! c.i.

perception,

I doubt your intention is to prevent any heartache but I've already made it clear that I expect exactly that in the military.

I did not say your patriotism is simplistic nor jingoistic. I said those who take issue with the way others feel about simple symboilism are simplistic. If one feels superior to another because he/she is more enthusiastic about flag waving he/she is a simpleton and is not any more patriotic, just meddlesome and foolish.

I do not expect to be discharged from the military and once again I'm going to ask you not to make such wild assumptions about which organizations I hold in contempt or what my future will hold. I accord you that respect and it's untoward to so openly discuss my failure as you envision it happening before my endeavor gets off the ground.

In short, stick to the topic here and stop trying to butt into my life and my descisions. I have as little interest in your life as I do your opinions about what I choose to do with mine.

Craven

Our military needs bright people and I wish you well.

I cannot accept the view on the "collapse of Rome," as it is too oversimplistic, and is simply the most current rehash of Gibbon's false premises. I agree that unweildy communications strained the imperial fabric, which is why two adminstrative centers were set up--Constantinople and Ravenna. The city of Rome was only a symbolic center at the time of Alaric's sack. The western portion of the empire decayed slowly over time, so that eventually the Lombards simply made a political reality of what had already happended, and divided what was left of the empire in Italy. France had already been lost to the Franks, who had assisted Aetius in his defeat of Attila, and thereafter simply ignored imperial authority. The already difficult communications were made impossible when the Lombards took Italy and the Franks took France, so the western portion was lost. The empire in the East lasted another thousand years, and was quite a vigorous political entity for much of that period. I think this is germaine to this discussion, because i don't buy the whole Gibbonesque "they got soft and corrupt and therefore their empire fell." The biggest negative influence in the west was slavery--the latifundia put the small farmer, craftsman and entrepreneur out of business--this did not happen in the east, which says much about why they survived. I sometimes fear that "globalization" may prove to be our latifundia.

Which brings me to why i chose that particular quote of Timber's to post with my response. I do not see our current administration as being composed of honorable men, with the possible exception of Powell, and i have my doubts about him--in that he is able to swallow administration diplomatic idiocy and continue to work with them. I wish to think the best of someone in such a difficult situation, so i try to think of Powell as doing his best in a bad situation. I don't trust Rumsfeld or Cheney as far as i can spit on a dry day--Cheney runs this show, the Shrub is just a front man in my opinion. I believe that Rumsfeld and Cheney don't act from a concept of honor, and i believe that this whole scenario is mostly about payback--Saddam's gonna get his comeuppance. This is not to say that i think they are at base bad men--but i believe that they are irretreivably corrupted by power. I remain unconvinced that this war is necessary, and i doubt that the Cheney administration would pull up short, even with a great public outcry. Fear of defeat in the next presidential election is the only factor i see which restrains this crew. While they may not be seeking personal enrichment by such a war, i certainly feel they will not miss any opportunity to foster the prosperity of their cronies, and that mostly means the energy industry. The comments about who would pump and deliver the oil are certainly to the point, and, i believe, correct. The energy industry in this country would certainly profit, however, especially if a large, newly "non-OPEC" source were provided. They have been stealing shamelessly from the American public for more than two years, and i don't see that as likely to change any time soon.

As for our responsibility to the world, if that were really the motivator, North Korea presents a more credible target as a clear and present danger with weapons of mass destruction (and i do not advocate war with them either). North Korea, China and Brazil routinely manufacture and export missiles and missile technology. The sudden focus on Saddam is, in my view, nothing less than what could be expected from Cheney, Rumsfeld and company. Such a war is NOT necessary, nor do i see any honorable motivation on the part of the Cheney administration.

I am a veteran, and for that reason, i do not want to see young men and women go into harm's way for so questionable a cause. It is very easy to sit comfortably at home and advocate a war which we personally will not have to fight. I remain opposed, despite believing that most anti-war people base their opposition on sketchy and often incorrect information. I believe that my eyes are reasonably open to the major aspects of this question, and that my judgment may be questioned on other bases, but not one of ignorance, nor of "hiding my head in the sand."

In all of this, my respect for Timber, whose opinion i find unsupportable, is not in the least lessened.

Setanta, The only difference I have with your opinion is that I do not think Cheney is pulling GW's puppet strings. I think Cheney can influence GW about 20 percent of the time, but Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice are more influential. c.i.

Setanta, no apology or explanation is required. The respect, and the regard, is mutual. The way the world has seemed to work for as long as we have had records to consider indicates that while possible one of us may be right and the other be wrong, it is even more probable the truth lies somewhere between. If there were no difference of opinion, there would be little to discuss.

I too am a veteran, and have both seen and caused the deaths of men and the wrenching agony of helpless innocents caught up in the tragedy. I have a son currently aboard a ship in The Gulf awaiting developments. I pray he will not be called upon to do the same, but that if he must, he he be safely successful and return home with stories he cannot share but with others who have done the same. I did not sympathize with the rationale of my war, I accept the necessity of being prepared for this one should it come.



timber

Well, c.i., you may be correct in that. I believe that this started out, at least, as the Cheney administration. It is entirely possible that the whole shootin' match has slipped from Cheney's grip.