The Iraq Questions

The airborn sprayer system you describe is a wonderful battlefield tactic too, Slimmerson, wind and other weather conditions permitting. Missile and artillery delivery results in a high percentage of the chemical agent being destroyed, as well as being uneven in the application.

Yet, they deny having any such chemicals, and Iraq is a big place to hide it. Do you think the UN team is going to turn up such weapons, or evidence of their existance?

Iraq had openly declared their possession of several tens of thousands of tons of chemical weapons during the 1980s. Some of those were used during the Iran/Iraq war and others were used on Kurds within Iraq itself. The UN inspection teams also found and destroyed 18,000 tons of chemical weapons and weapon components during inspections in the early 1990s however, there has been no way for the UN Inspection teams to ensure they found and destroyed ALL of them or that production hasn't resumed since inspections stopped. A lot of numbers have been thrown about for how many tons of chemical weapons Iraq has but we really still have no firm answer.

Iraq also declared that they had 8,500 liters of anthrax in their 1991 UN Declaration and prior inspection teams suggested that they might have up to 4 times that amount based on the Iraqi production capacity. Iraq later claimed that they had destroyed all 8,500 liters of their Anthrax stocks in late 1991 but in 1993 the UN teams found 6 Iraqi missles that has traces in Anthrax spores inside the missle warhead compartments and evidence that the anthrax had been in those warheads less than 5 weeks prior. IOW, evidence that Iraq still had significant stocks of anthrax despite claiming otherwise.

To me, it seems foolish to expect that the Iraqi's have changed their tactics. I believe they still have chemical and/or biological weapons hidden however I have no guess as to how many or how much. I don't believe the US Government is in much better position to guess either but my concern is how we might respond if evidence is found. I can argue back and forth with myself over what level of a violation should be cause for military action by the US but the arguments seem to balance each other out. Bush has been stressing "any' violation however I wouldn't support an invasion if 1 liter of anthrax was found. At the same time one liter found means there may be others still hidden and that there is an intent to hide them on the part of Iraq.

If any violations are found the results are going to be a mess one way or the other. It's things like this that make me appreciate being an arm-chair quarterback and not being one who actually has to make the decision one way or another.

(Edited to correct a few typos which always seem to creep into my posts despite my best intentions! Arrgh! Why did I skip typing class?)

timber and fishin

Little if anything I can disagree with in either post. Good thinking, good writing.

Slimmerson, you have some concerns I share. 70 years ago, Hitler was a comic-opera rabble-rouser grasping for power in a small, isolated, war-shattered nation. Over the next eight years, much of the world came around to varying degrees of accepting that he "Was a bad man", but the contemporary global politico-diplomatic consensus was "He poses no direct, immediate threat to us, we have no business going after him". Five years of unimagineable horror later on, Hitler had been dealt with, at significantly greater cost and inconvenience than would have been necessary had The Doves, The Appeasers, and The Isolationists not had their way in the 'Thirties. We have the ability, and I think with that ability, the RESPONSIBILITY, to be proactive in matters of this sort. History has shown that if one doesn't take appropriate steps to direct the course of events, one often finds oneself drug around by the course of those events. A fire left untended in a neighbor's field can quickly engulf our own farm.


Roger, very effective technology exists for the projectile delivery of aerosol weapons. Iraq may or may not have that technology; there is reason to suspect they may, which in itself is cause to assume they do and to prepare accordingly. An agricultural-type spray system poses little real threat to Western Military Units; anything bigger than a bird moving a few feet off the ground in the vicinity of any US/UN unit without squawking the appropriate IFF (Identification Freind or Foe) codes and not conforming to known Freindly Air Operations Plans and Proceedures will in very short order become the centerpiece in a display of aerial pyrotechnics.

fishin' we too share concerns and situational appraisals. I think it disingenuous at best to think Iraq today is any great deal more trustworthy than it was a decade ago. A vicious cur does not become a housepet of its own volition. As I have said before, however, "The War" is incidental. The real challenge, and test of our mettle, resolve, and justification, lies in how we deal with a Post-Sadaam Iraq. The World has doubts of our achievement of success in this area, and I myself remain skeptical. As has been said, it is difficult to concentrate on draining a swamp when one finds oneself ass-deep in alligators, and I can imagine no more saurian a collection of politico-cultural reptiles than the leaders and powerbrokers of The Middle East.


blatham, thank you, sir. I have given this matter much thought, and wrestle with its implications every day. I abhor the very thought of war, but the coming one seems necessary if far greater evil is to be avoided. Sadaam is not the only problem facing the world, but he is one of the world's problems, and if not dealt with now, he will need to be dealt with later. Perhaps, just perhaps, an outgrowth of this current adventure may be a World Body ready to take responsibility for its own destiny and become proactive in the causes of Peace, Prosperity, and Stability. I fear, however, there are many missteps to come. I am extremely glad I am relegated to "Armchair Quarterbacking". These are truly momentous times, with implications far beyond those aired to present.



timber

As has been mentioned at this site before, the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times" seems to apply here with a vengeance. I still remain unconvinced that war is necessary. I also remained convinced that we will not be able properly to manage an occupation of Iraq, and that going to war will raise the ante in terms of muslim terroism by a very great deal. I also think that the Hitler analogy is being abused here. Hitler and Saddam are very much alike in many respects--both are extremely competent gutter politicians, who can fairly accurately judge the resolve of their potential opponents, IF those potential opponents seem weak or divided. But they can both be very wrong in such an assessment through their hubristic contempt for all forms of international polity. Both are military idiots. But there are important distinctions to be made here. The first is the world's reaction to aggression. Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, in violation of the Versailles treaty, and nothing was done. Hitler absorbed Austria under the flimsy pretext of the "Aunchless" (sp?), and nothing was done. Hitler instigated the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and nothing was done. By the time he rolled into Poland, he was convinced that he could run rampant in Europe, and face no creditable opposition. The sitzkrieg seemed to bear that out--and the result of this very serious miscalculation on the part of Hitler cost both Germany and much of the rest of the world a great deal.

Saddam's case, however, has not fallen out the same. When he had a breeder reactor up and going, the Israelis took it out with an air strike, and he was incapable of defending the facility, or of retaliating in any militarily meaningful way. When he went to war with the Persians, their bad rep gave him an entré to covert western aid, which lead him to very wrong conclusions about how he was seen in the US. When he invaded Kuwait, he got a response i really doubt he had planned on. His nation has suffered from sanctions ever since. When Hitler rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1938, the performance of his military was almost comic-opera, given that there was virtually no resistance. But the Army cleaned up it's act, and when Poland was invaded, the Germans represented one of the most powerful military organizations on earth, and were located in the heart of Europe. In Saddam's case, his military has only ever been large--they've never proven themselves to be particularly competent (shooting down Persian teenagers in human wave attacks doesn't get you any points on the military competency chart), although he has maintained a more or less elite bunch in the Republican Guards. Morale is the big problem with the Iraqis--even the Republican Guards, and it is understandable that many Iraqis had no particular desire to die fighting Persians, and were even less enchanted with prospect of war with the US. This is why i am not convinced of the necessity of war with Iraq. Saddam has been contained, as Hitler never was, short of a pan-European war. The sanctions hurt ordinary Iraqis, and not Saddam and his cronies, but you would have to be some special kind of crazy to allow normal trade to a regime such as this--and i believe the embargo is effective in preventing him from carrying out his plans on the scale which he would prefer. It is not certain that he is crazy enough to use WOMD's on anyone else, unless it would be the Gotzendamerung scenario others have mentioned. I have a real problem with GI's dying in such a war, when Saddam's neighbors, the only ones threatened at the moment, seem unwilling to participate in an anti-Iraqi coalition. Unlike Hitler, Saddam's military development has been hindered. Unlike Hitler, there is sufficient force, and the will to use, available to crush Saddam if he gets froggy. Unlike post-war Germany, Iraq remains a clan and tribal nightmare, and "rebuilding" Iraq would bear no similarities to the "economic miracle" in Germany in the 1950's. This is a bad idea, and i don't trust the Shrub and company on this one any farther than i can spit on a hot, dry day.

Taking into account that i am not the brightest bulb on the tree, it seems to me that as long as the UN inspectors are during their job either finding and destroying WMD or not finding. Their continued, unrestricted presence/inspections have the immediated effect of preventing Iraq from instigating aggression. So what if it takes 20 years or for that matter the rest of the century, as long as they are there doing their job there is NO justification for military conflict. In addition, while they are inspecting for WMD the rest of the world could very well be providing medical and other assistance to the peoples of Iraq including the Kurds, opening up greater but supervised trade, gradually infiltrating the economics for the greater good of everyone. It seems to me that the government of Iraq would be forced internally to beome a cooperative member of the internation community. Just my opinion i might be wrong.

Personally, i couldn't agree with you more.

Dyslexia

It would be nice to think that protracted inspections will continually delay war.

But the Zionists and warmongers want the enemies of the children of Israel destroyed, so that won't do at all.

Iraqi defectors say that in previous inspections work on WMD went on at sites within three blocks of the inspectors. Some parts were made within yards of the inspectors rounds. The inspectors are not inhibiting Saddam from possessing WMD or making more of them.

The inspectors are not stopping Saddam from attacking anybody. Thousands of Air Force people manning two no fly zones that strap Iraq down stop Saddam from attacking his neighbors. Without them, Saddam would simply make the inspectors into human shields during his new campaign.

Having the inspectors wander around Iraq for months or years is no answer. It just buys Saddam time to do his worst. The fact is that Saddam can hide his weapons better than the inspectors can find them.

Tantor

well, like i said Tantor i ain't the brightest bulb on the tree.

But a bulb on my tree!

Don't put yourself down, Boss, Tantor is, as usual, presenting his opinion as fact . . . i agree with your take on this subject, but, sadly, the bloodthirsty will probably get their way in this . . .

Just curious, are there any women on this thread?

There is now!

I don't know that'd agree with this. If the inspectors are there he's got to keep the stuff in hiding and that doesn't give him the chance time to do anything with them other than move them from hiding place to hiding place.

If we had the resolve to wait him out and the International community was willing to foot the bill for Inspectors for 15 or 20 years Saddam will kick the bucket and things could move on. In effect it wouldn't be much different then what we've done with Cuba for the last 40 years.

Whether or not we have that sort of resolve is another question. We don't have a great track record there.

And that's a damned shame; if you read my earlier post, you know the reaons why i believe Iraq is not a significant threat even with WOMD's--so what's the point of getting a lot of American and English troops killed and wounded, and proably thousands of Iraqis? Because the cowboy and company wanna get Saddam--there are no compelling reasons for war now, and won't be at any time in the foreseeable future. In fact, i have a very "serve 'em right" attitude toward Saddam's neighbors in the Gulf region on the issue of him using his weapons on them.

This is a sophomoric line of reasoning.

Bush Sr did the right thing. He stopped when the mission was accomplished. It's a mature virtue called restraint. By contrast, you can see the problems with mission creep, with adding goals to an operation in progress, with Clinton's Somalia adventure in nation-building. We went in to do a humanitarian mission and the next thing you now the mission creeps to nation-building. America gets a bloody nose in the streets of Mogadishu and we walk away losers.

Had Iraq rolled over and become a model world citizen we would not be contemplating invasion. Had Iraq put its energy to rebuilding and refashioning itself into a prosperous country instead of into building nukes to threaten its neighbors, we would not be in this situation.

Tantor

Fishin, there are only a few dozen inspectors in a country the size of California. It's easy to hide the stuff. If Saddam decides on a whim to yank his WMDs out of hiding, mount them on SCUDs, and fire them off at his neighbors, the inspectors would not know about it until they heard about it from the media.



Waiting makes the situation worse because it allows Saddam more time to complete his nukes. If Saddam acquires a nuke, it makes an invasion unlikely. Our set of options become severely reduced and the likelihood of nuclear war increases dramatically. Waiting is simply avoiding difficult decisions now that will only store up trouble for the future.

May I remind you that when the Soviets moved nuclear warheads to Cuba we prepared to invade it and were willing to risk WWIII to get those nukes out of there. It was not until the Soviets removed the missiles and warheads that we called it off. Saddam is not going to remove his missiles and WMD warheads. He does not even admit there are any. Following the Cuban model you cite, we should invade and remove them ourselves.

Tantor


Whether or not we have that sort of resolve is another question. We don't have a great track record there.[/quote]

The occupation of Iraq will be no cake walk, I'll grant you that. However, it will likely inhibit terrorism more than excite it. The Arabs respect force. Our timidity in the face of terrorism has only encouraged it. Our forceful confrontation of it has suppressed it.

For example, the fiery young men from the madrassas in Pakistan couldn't wait to fight the American infidels in Afghanistan. Now that they were soundly thrashed, many never came home, others returned wounded, and all returned with horrifying stories of the infidels bombing their asses to hell, there is not much enthusiasm to join the next jihad. The townsfolk of the border villages of Pakistan have turned their ire on their local mullahs for talking their boys into joining some damned fool jihad against America. The Arab street did not grab their AK-47s and run off to fight America. They pretty much bit their lip, slunk back home, and shut up.

Tantor

tantor: i am probably wrong again but i seem to remember that kennedy also admitted that the US missiles in Turkey were not a good idea and agreed to pull them out as a trade off for cuba.