Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Consequences of not going to war?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

09:17 / 11.09.02

What are the possible consequences of not attacking Iraq? Are those consequences real? How bad would they have to be to justify an attack, and the certain results of that?

What is the price of restraint, and what are the rewards?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

12:22 / 11.09.02

Well, the biggest reward will be a large number of people not dying in bombing attacks that go wrong, though then we still get them due to starvation caused by the embargo on goods.

However, the biggest problem with backing down is that it will result in increased kudos for Hussain. He will be perceived as having successfully stood up to American and British aggression and it will be egg on the face for Bush and Blair. We may have to go to war just so Bush feels he doesn't look like an idiot.

15:36 / 11.09.02

Personally, I think regardless of whether or not we attack Iraq, there will inevitably be war on a regional scale there. The Middle East is still the #1 arms importing region in the world; the Israeli-Palestinian situation is still unresolved; there are still disputes over water rights (Israelis, Palestinians, Jordan, Syria); the Kurds still want their homeland; and directly or indirectly, Saddam touches on all of the above. In other words, no matter if we invade or not, the region is already unstable and is likely to get worse with time, barring any works of diplomatic savantry or divine intervention. If Israel is attacked by Iraq, it WILL retaliate, that much is certain. In order for Israel to retaliate, its aircraft must pass over hostile territory (ie. Syria, Lebanon) since it does not share a common border with Iraq. Said hostile parties will inevitably try to shoot down the Israeli planes, and the situation very quickly escalates into a wider conflict. If we invade Iraq, that may happen anyway. I think either way, that part of the world is screwed.

23:35 / 11.09.02

Presumably, Iraqi military powers will steadily increase over time. Given that the weapons inspectors have been out of the country for quite some time, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that Iraq has been working on chemical or biological weapons, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that Saddam has been working towards acquiring nuclear weapons. By "believe," I do not necessarily mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. I mean a reasonable degree of belief. Everything I have heard about Saddam indicates that he thinks of himself as a man with a great destiny.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he is left unrestrained to fulfill this destiny. The European nations and the Arab nations want to do it multilaterally, and they have concerns about the precedents that may be set if the proper steps are not taken in advance. The United States is calling for quicker action. Given that weapons inspectors might take over a year to determine which kinds of weapons Iraq has (according to one former inspector I heard quoted on the radio), it may be unwise to allow them the extra time. They may be making some weapons, and selling them to terrorist organizations and so on...

How bad would they have to be to justify an attack, and the certain results of that?
Well, that's kind of the problem. Aside from, "bombs will be dropped and kill people," there aren't certain results of fighting this war. We can make educated guesses, but nobody really knows. You cannot go into a war truly believing you know just what you're getting into.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

07:13 / 12.09.02

Interestingly, before any engagement, the governments involved place orders for things like replacement limbs and so on. They tend to get the estimates rather close to the demand, year for year.

And we can take the previous Iraq war as a starting point, given that we're intending to go further this time. So we start with 100,000 military casualties, and no one knows how many civilians, but since it could go house-to-house, we may assume 'heavy'.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

08:55 / 12.09.02

Call me selfish, but (and I hasten to add- this is by no means my entire opinion on the subject- just the part I'm currently assigning priority to) it's not so much the political ramifications that bother me. It's the moral ones.

"We" (ie the US/UK) can't claim the moral high ground on this one. For all we trumpet the "but he's a bastard! He killed his own people for fuck's sake!" argument... we let (and indirectly helped) him do it. And if Tony Benn is to be believed (which I think seems likely) he was "tempted" (to use TB's word- on Any Questions last Saturday) to invade Kuwait, having been told by various US sources that were he to do so, the West would treat it as "an Arab problem".

"We" already have blood on "our" hands. I don't really want any more, unless someone can come up with a FUCKING good reason for it.

Everyone's all scared about what he "might" do to the West. Using as their justification what he DID do to the Kurds. When we gave not a shit.

I know the phrase "Not In My Name" is trite. But it works.

09:27 / 12.09.02

Are you totally out of your mind???

Don't you understand that if we don't attack Iraq they are going to attack us??? Are we going to let that happen??? Are you totally whacko???? How can we just sit here????? We need to do something about this ok!!!!!!!

Did you hear??? Angelina Jolie is making a new movie!!!!

12:38 / 12.09.02

Chairman M, I'm going to address this specifically to you, but it's w/r/t a trend I've seen a lot in anti-war arguments, and one that puzzles me in many respects.

Your argument above goes something like, "We (the U.S. and allies) helped directly or indirectly with the atrocities that Saddam has committed/ will committ, therefore we have no moral right to censure him (and, you know, kill him) for these atrocities. Any action the U.S. takes will be dubious precisely because of their past support of Hussein (and whoever else, wherever and whenever else)."

The way I see it, if a previous adminstration of the U.S. (which may or may not consist of the same people in the same or different roles) did something "morally wrong," don't they have a greater obligation to try and fix it? Previous actions may require some suspicions of motivations/resolution, but isn't it, well, if not laudable, expected that a country with the U.S.'s power cleans up its geopolitical mess?

The main problem with the U.S. military campaign in Iraq in '91 (and the current campaign in Afghanistan) in my mind, is the lack of transparency, the lack of public oversight into what's going on. And that's directly the responsibility of the media. Yes, the DoD restricts journalist access and in some cases (which are IMHO entirely believable) directly threatened the lives of journalists. I think some legislation is in order than mandates journalistic access to all but the most secret missions.

Sorry for the off-topic tangent here.

13:00 / 12.09.02

--if Tony Benn is to be believed (which I think seems likely) he was "tempted" (to use TB's word- on Any Questions last Saturday) to invade Kuwait, having been told by various US sources that were he to do so, the West would treat it as "an Arab problem".--

I've heard exactly the same thing, apparently it's a widely believed story in Iraq that Saddam was given the 'go-ahead' and then betrayed by the CIA after the fact.

I don't think many people would shed tears or think it morally wrong if someone 'popped a cap in Saddam's ass' but the idea of invading a whole country which has already suffered enough is not the way to solve the problem, especially in the present political climate.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:32 / 12.09.02

t.o.d.d.Your argument above goes something like, "We (the U.S. and allies) helped directly or indirectly with the atrocities that Saddam has committed/ will committ, therefore we have no moral right to censure him (and, you know, kill him) for these atrocities. Any action the U.S. takes will be dubious precisely because of their past support of Hussein (and whoever else, wherever and whenever else)."

The way I see it, if a previous adminstration of the U.S. (which may or may not consist of the same people in the same or different roles) did something "morally wrong," don't they have a greater obligation to try and fix it? Previous actions may require some suspicions of motivations/resolution, but isn't it, well, if not laudable, expected that a country with the U.S.'s power cleans up its geopolitical mess?

All fine and good, but they tend not to admit they did anything wrong in the first place, understandable as no administration wants to admit it's fallible. And if they don't say they are going in to fix what they made wrong first time out but give a bunch of other reasons then you have to examine those.

And then we have the problem with Cheney et al talking about them being part of an axis of evil when they haven't done 'owt for over a decade, that they're 25 minutes away from having nukes when they haven't, etc etc. Then you wonder why they are lying, and realise Iraq has oil, there's the political embaressment of Hussain still being in power when Shrub senior ain't (I can't substantiate this but I believe I saw a report that says the Bush dynasty blames not ousting Hussain for Bush senior not getting his second term, they have a blind spot when it comes to the economy crashing), it helps them to destabilise the region for their own ends... and then you apply that morality to the original statement. And when I say 'you', I mean 'I' of course.

18:36 / 12.09.02

Discussing this with people I know who have ties to the intellegence community. One fear that hasn't been touched on by many people is that this would not be the first time the US goverment "helped" to take out a leader in the middle east, against the wishes of many/most of those in the middle east.

The last time was to reenstate to shah in Iran. It all ended with the Iranian revolution. The chance does exist for another fundamentalist revolution to occure in the power vacum that Hussain would leave. Considering the current situation in Afganistan, I have yet to hear anyone deal with this situation.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

11:40 / 15.09.02

Everyone posting on the board has ties to the intelligence community. It's just that not everyone knows it.

re: possible post-Saddam governments, you should have seen the Bolton interview I posted about in another thread. It wasn't reassuring.

01:05 / 16.09.02

One thing that posters have mentioned, but the press has been mute on as far I've seen is the fact that this isnt a decision whether to asassinate(sp) Saddam or not. We're going to bomb Bagdhad, invade Iraq, kill tens of thousands of people who dislike their leader more than we do, kill some of our citizens as well, and probably in the end have him escape to Pakistan to hide out with Bin Laden.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

07:40 / 16.09.02

The press has been far from silent, there was a charming article on the pros of assassination just the other day.

New thread.

08:19 / 16.09.02

Assuming that Sadam's regime is not toppled, and he continues to build up his armaments (again, assuming he is doing so at the moment) what happens when he finally gets significant biological/chemical/atomic weaponry? The delivery capabilities would almost undoubtedly be relatively local - the middle east as a whole, rather than Europe or America. So who can he attack?

He attacks an Arab country, and the only reason for America not attacking is removed. If anything, everybody in the world jumps him. The last time he attacked an Arab country Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iran all agreed that retaliation involving America was necessary and that takes a lot. So I think we can safely rule out attacking an Arab country.

He attacks Israel. Every Western country would automatically agree to removing him. It might well garner him support with the populations of Arab countries as a whole (and I am really talking very generally here) but the leaderships would almost certainly be very in favour of taking him out as a clearly rogue state that threatens them too.

So would Saddam actually attack anybody? Is he mad enough? Very probably he is, from what I have seen of his actions. But would his elite support him, or would it generate a coup d'etat? I suspect at that stage the ruling cadre would start thinking about war crimes tribunals and would topple him before they allowed him to attack.

The problem with all of this is:
(a) assuming they would have the time and opportunity to organise a coup from when it became apparent he was really going to use the weapons.
(b) assuming they would succeed.
(c) assuming they really would have the guts to try this - the last few dozen attempts have usually resulted in their perpetrators and their families being butchered.

So generally, I reckon if we don't topple the regime there is a very real possibility that Saddam's regime will
(a) obtain atomic/biological/chemical weapons
(b) use them at some point in the foreseeable future
(c) in a manner which cannot be stopped in the short term.

Overall, if he doesn't allow weapons inspectors etc. etc. then I cannot see a long term solution to the problem other than invasion.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

16:48 / 16.09.02

So would Saddam actually attack anybody? Is he mad enough?

Is he bad enough? Yes. Is he dumb enough? Perhaps not. A WMD attack launched against Israel would be a very, very bad idea. The Israelis have their own nuclear toys. Attacking the Arab nations is a better option for him, but as you say, invites response.

Very probably he is, from what I have seen of his actions. But would his elite support him, or would it generate a coup d'etat? I suspect at that stage the ruling cadre would start thinking about war crimes tribunals and would topple him before they allowed him to attack.

Ruling cadre? I fear you're an optimist. He's not a guy who's into creating infrastructure of that kind. I suspect he's more a Tsar than a King, yes? Service aristocracy rather than landed noble class.

Consider another option: put a deal on the table. For this much money and this much infrastructural aid, you will implement the following changes to be approved by us...a straight, open buy. We do it everywhere else. Right now, we're just doing stick, and that gives us a series of lousy options.

You really, really need to read the Pilger book, Fist.

17:34 / 16.09.02

Can I just drop this little article in this thread?

A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

18:48 / 16.09.02

The key words here being "even before he took power in January 2001". I read the article but I'm not sure how much of it I'm willing to accept at face value. The one thing we don't need in light of the current world situation is hysterical conspiracy theory or hyperbole from anyone, especially the alternative press.

Just for the record, at this point, I would consider supporting a regime change IF it comes about as a UN action, replaces Saddam with a democracy, involves substantial global assistance in rebuilding the country's infrastructure, and genuinely makes an effort to improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people.

A full-scale US invasion with no time-table for withdrawel and an indefinite length of stay/occupation; and/or Saddam's replacement by another ambitious little pitbull of a general I would not support under ANY circumstances.

I have no doubts that the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, however, his removal should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people and those living in the region who are threatened by him, NOT for the exclusive benefit of US geopolitical interests or ambitions in the Mideast.

I have a bad feeling though about what the "end-game" scenario is going to look like, if Afghanistan is any indicator.

01:01 / 17.09.02

In other words, no matter if we invade or not, the region is already unstable and is likely to get worse with time, barring any works of diplomatic savantry or divine intervention.

Getting worse, in comparison to what? Current situations in the West are rather fractious also.

Afghanistan is a fine example of Regime Change.

03:53 / 17.09.02

"Everyone posting on the board has ties to the intelligence community. It's just that not everyone knows it."

yes, but how many share DNA with members (or specifically, former members) of the intellegence community?

"and probably in the end have him escape to Pakistan to hide out with Bin Laden."

Acctually, Bin Laden would probably take more pleasure in seeing him dead then Bush. Fundamentalists do not like Hussain. Acctually, no one seems to really like Hussain. The US's oposition to Iraq (and the embargo's that they forced on the country) have given the man more allies then anything else.

Personally, I'd like to see a regime change. But one that is better thought out, and is able to be handled in a better manner. One that is handled with in the laws of the UN. And one, if military action is needed, that does not involve a two theater war. I have grave misgivings about the US's ability to continue operations in Afganistan AND invade Iraq.

I also think it shouldn't be done untill the situation in Palestine is under something resembling control.

07:14 / 17.09.02

More propoganda from PNAC, (mentioned in the post by 'will you think I'm crazy') and signed by Rumsfeld, jeb Bush, Quayle, Steve Forbes etc.

"The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. "

This group has been campaigning for a war against Iraq since the Clinton days

We're The Great Old Ones Now

08:10 / 17.09.02

yes, but how many share DNA with members (or specifically, former members) of the intellegence community?

Three that I can think of offhand, but then, I only know a small number of posters.