Asymmetrical Information

As if the well-oiled oppression and torture of the Iraqi people isn't a human disaster, nor a travesty calling into question the sincerity and validity of so-called "human rights" gaggles.

...didn't they say this about Afghanistan too?

Translation:

"We'll lose money and power if the USA succeeds!"

J

Translation:

"We'll lose money and power if the USA succeeds!"

J

The odds are far higher that we will save the lives of many Iraqis. We should pay little attention to these childishly immature utopians. In their heart of hearts, they want to see us fail. They may not quite be our enemies, but these clowns are not our friends!

Its as if everything as it currently sits in Iraq is just going along in paradise, and along comes the BBA ( Big Bad Americans) to screw it all up.

Cry me a river, Saddam. The whole world will be ahead when the Huessin clan and unendited co-conpsirators goes to their well-deserved reward (ie punishment).

And what till you hear what the Franco-Germanic connection was doing behind our backs...

Actually, my worst fear is that Saddam, as Hilter did, will feel that his country is not fit to survive without him; that he may have booby-trapped Iraq to kill as many civilians as possible in the event of war.

Actually, my worst fear is that Saddam, as Hilter did, will feel that his country is not fit to survive without him; that he may have booby-trapped Iraq to kill as many civilians as possible in the event of war.

Actually, my worst fear is that Saddam, as Hilter did, will feel that his country is not fit to survive without him; that he may have booby-trapped Iraq to kill as many civilians as possible in the event of war.

My fear is that Saddam, like Hitler, will feel that his country is not fit to survive without him; that he may have booby-trapped Iraq to kill as many civilians as possible in the event of war.

My fear is that Saddam, like Hitler, will feel that his country is not fit to survive without him; that he may have booby-trapped Iraq to kill as many civilians as possible in the event of war.

Woe, nellie!!! So there is no chance that things will get worse in Iraq if the most powerful military organization in the world takes on a desperate home team on the streets of Baghdad? It is of course possible that the people who are warning of humanitarian disaster are only doing so because of a political agenda that leads them to say anything to keep the US from attacking Iraq. There is, however, just the slightest chance the people who work at humanitarian organizaitons are sincerely trying to do the job they say they are trying to do. Afghanistan didn't turn out as bad as predicted? Well, sometimes the best bookie in town gets the points spread wrong, but nobody accuses him of having a political agenda.

The humanitarian agencies are crying wolf, no question. If they announce something better than the worst case, the assistance they round up is only adequate for something a lot less dire than the worst case. Sometimes, that's just not enough. I'd bet they don't like to fail any more than the rest of us, maybe less, given the nature of failure in their business. This is their way of doing their job.

Good heavens! Sorry for the reposts -- it said it had failed each time before!

What, exactly, is 'humanitarian law'? I've heard of civil law, criminal law, and even 'international law' but never 'humanitarian law'.

The BBC article is probably talking about "human rights law" such as all those parts of the UN Charter that Saddam has been ignoring and contravening at will for the past thirty years. You would think the UN had outlawed war. Let's see, wasn't there one in the Eighties between Iraq and Iran with a MILLION DEAD? The UN Charter was really effective at dealing with that. Don't get me started about Rwanda, the Congo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Bosnia etc., etc.

Steven, I also wondered about Cairns' "humanitarian law". Apparently nothing the Iraqi government is currently doing contravenes it.

Then again, he seems to think the Iraqi government is amazing because they can efficiently give out food:
"This may be the only place in the world where for the last 10 years everyone gets a ration, in a very efficient way. And without this ration, starvation will come like this," he said, snapping his fingers.

No word about whether the trains run on time, I note. Apparently everyone gets a ration (except children and old people, to judge by the Sanctions article), but they will starve instantly if the supply is disrupted. It seems the Iraqis practice "just in time" food delivery, along the lines of modern manufacturing theory. Unfortunately, this leads to people dying when breakfast is late, but boy is it efficient!

I agree with K Harris' point, that these will be problems if (when) the US invades, and it is part of the relief agency's job to complain about that. But it's also true that a functioning Iraqi economy would put most of these relief-ocrats out of business, and that current conditions are also pretty bad. I'd feel more sympathy for the relief agencies if they could admit any of this, instead of just complaining.

"This may be the only place in the world where for the last 10 years everyone gets a ration, in a very efficient way. And without this ration, starvation will come like this," he said, snapping his fingers.

Translation: Saddam is controlling the food supply for political reasons, which has been the 'minority report' observation of some journalists who have actually spent significant time inside Iraq (Maurice Murrad, for example).

my worst fear is that Saddam, as Hilter did

That's the best of all possible typos to make, Tim. ;-)

So your argument is essentially "if I eat your ice cream cone you can't blame me because it would have been eaten anyway?"

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your sins cannot be absolved merely because they would have been committed by someone else anyway.

I'm not saying I agree with the estimates, but you can't dismiss the argument with such a silly statement.

Josh, your ice cream analogy makes it sound like the Iraqu's are Saddam's to kill and if a few are killed by our actions, then we've stolen Saddam's rightful chance to murder.

A better analogy: if an ambulance wrecks on the way to taking a shooting victim to the hospital and the victim dies, the blame for the death still falls on the person who did the shooting, not the one who drove the ambulance.

No, a better analogy is if one of our bombs kills an Iraqi civilian who was going to starve to death anyway. Oh wait, that might actually happen.

I think your analogy can be better stated as: If a police car accidentally runs over a shooting victim in pursuit of the shooter, shouldn't we be thinking about ambulances instead (and yes, we should place some blame on the driver of the police car)?

And in a sense, yes, we would be stealing Saddam's right to kill his own people. They are citizens of a sovereign nation, aren't they? By the same logic, Iraq has no right to kill our citizens, but the government does, via capital punishment.

Don't get me wrong, I think you can make the case for ousting Saddam and what not. But, I don't think you can make the case that it's okay to kill Iraqi civilians, even if they would have died anyway. Any administration should be blamed for any civilian deaths caused by our tactics. It may be "unavoidable" to have some casualties, but that doesn't mean we can ignore them.

I wonder what Libya has to say about all of this.

The reformation of Iraq, since it sits in the middle of the Middle East, is getting attention for about a six hundred mile radius. That would be the range of aircraft from the new American aibase in Iraq.

Perhaps the better argument is:

Given the choice between (a) letting Saddam continue to kill Iraqi civilians for the remainder of his natural life and then from the grave through his nuthatch sons, and (b) a war to remove Saddam that will almost inevitably result in regrettable civilian casualties, which does a person prefer?

Josh: You are arguing the wrong side of the Just War Doctrine, see:
http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.1272/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm

In a Just War, nations are always presumed to have policies which might not keep track of the welfare of every discrete subject, let alone other nation's subjects. But to be Just, the War should have objectively good aims, not only for the antagonist but for the protagonist. More over, innocent civilians should not be drawn involuntarily into the military decision process (targeted and killed) as a matter of normal operations. In fact, their casualties should be minimized as much as possible, but considerable leeway can be given any nation pursuing overall humanitarian goals in balancing this minimization against other beneficial goals.

Keeping track of individual fates on the battlefield is an emotionally cathartic process after the war, but during the war or before other policy motivations are clearly recognizable for any nation.

Josh wrote:

"And in a sense, yes, we would be stealing Saddam's right to kill his own people. They are citizens of a sovereign nation, aren't they?"

Iraq gave up that right when it signed the peace agreement that ended (or, as some would have it, interrupted) the Gulf War. It has been in violation of that agreement almost continuously ever since. The fact that the U.N. has lacked the will to force Iraq to live up to its obligations (it might well have lifted the restrictions on Iraq altogether were it not for the determined resistance of the U.S. and a disgustingly small number of its allies) doesn't change this.

Come to think of it, the U.S. is still technically at war with North Korea. Might be good for Kim Jong-Il to keep that in mind, since the most expedient approach for dealing with his psychotic regime might be bombing his fat ass back further into the Stone Age.

Somehow I can't see "protecting the right of Saddam to kill his own people" as adequate ideological cover to let the Berlin/Paris Axis of Weasels keep the U.S. from doing what needs to be done.

I would be tickled pink if the casualties were comprised primarily of the idiot human shields.

Josh wrote:

"And in a sense, yes, we would be stealing Saddam's right to kill his own people. They are citizens of a sovereign nation, aren't they?"

Nations do not have the arbitrary right to kill their citizens. Individuals executed in the United States go through significant judicial review, not to mention the initial jury trial.

Saddam's victims are just that -- victims. By invading, we may create short term casualties in the civilian population, but the end result will be a freer, better fed, better tended population.

There are other issues, but from a strictly humanitarian position, the short term pain will be worth the long term gain.

J

Saddam's victims are just that -- victims. By invading, we may create short term casualties in the civilian population, but the end result will be a freer, better fed, better tended population.

And it's not as if the Iraqi people wouldn't gladly risk death from the carnage of war or the retribution of local Republican Guardsmen for freedom.

Exactly, Micheal. I left out the Lockeian implications of liberation -- that the Iraqi people will at last have the opportunity to consent to whatever government they ewventually form.

Currently, they are ruled by a despot. I am certain that while some of teh Iraqi support the despot, or perhaps more accurately, profit from the despot, the remainder will gleefully aid us in driving the despot from power.

> Well, sometimes the best bookie in town gets the points spread wrong, but nobody accuses him of having a political agenda.

A little knowledge of gambling seems in order.

First rule - the book isn't trying to predict a game's outcome. The book is trying to make money.

The point spread is set so that half of the money goes to each side. The book makes money on the gap between the amount wagered and the payout. (For football, the typical bet scheme is that an $11 bet results in either $21 or 0 returned.)

Each book sets the spread so as to split the amount bet AT THAT book. However, bettors behavior upon finding different spreads tends to push spreads at different books toward each other. And, books will layoff bets to each other. (That's necessary because in some places, you just can't get enough money on one side to support the sort of spread that will attract bettors.)

march for saddam's rights!

dictators MUST be allowed to kill their own people.. they're their people after all!!!

i have 500k for anyone that'll run that march...

some people are just freaking *****s

Hmm. I've been collecting slogans to use when I finally get fed up enough to go to an "anti-war" protest:

NO BLOOD FOR FREEDOM
KILL KURDS, NOT MUMIA
DEMOCRACY IS NOT FOR BROWN PEOPLE
A MILLION IRAQIS AREN'T WORTH ONE AMERICAN SOLDIER

I think I just found another one:

DON'T STEAL SADDAM'S RIGHT TO KILL HIS OWN PEOPLE!

that would be hilarious. Get about fifty friends together and disperse them in the crowd with those signs, then watch the fun...

The terrible thing is, after seeing some of the more extreme slogans from last weekend's protests, I'm not so sure anyone would look amiss or notice anything wrong with any of those.

Don't forget the cryptic:

NO BLEATS FOR OIL!

That should get some heads scratched.

FPT

IN re: bleating for oil
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/03/0103/0103art/bleatban.jpg

and play 'where's waldo'

Frank's being obtuse.

Let's see, wasn't there one in the Eighties between Iraq and Iran with a MILLION DEAD? The UN Charter was really effective at dealing with that.

To be fair, we were balls-to-the-wall supporting Iraq in that one, including having US destroyers directly fire at Iran (according to Kevin Pollack.)

It’s estimated that 15,000 civilians were killed the first time around and we didn’t even go all the way. If you support the war, are you willing to go fight yourself (or send one of your kids)? Are you willing to sit down and explain to an Iraqi woman that we consider her child who picked up an unexploded cluster bomb “collateral damage”? You could tell her that the death of her kid was necessary to make life better for all Iraqi people. “You should be thanking us,” you could say. “A lot more of your people would have died if Saddam were still in power.”

"Listen" you would say as you look into her eyes, "I know you're upset, but you don't understand. This is a good thing... a necessary thing". Perhaps it is. Perhaps it is necessary. I think that if you're going to support the war you should be willing to sit down and have that conversation.

Okay, are you willing to go to Iraq and tell all the women whose husbands, brothers, and sons disappeared why you think they should suck it up? Because if you're against the war, I think you should be willing to go tell the Iraqis why their suffering is just not your problem.

Good point. No, I’m not willing to go and tell them that. I'm not against the war. I'm just saying that it should be an absolute last resort and that one should think deeply about the suffering prior to making that choice and if one is going to be pro-war, they should be willing to face the reality of it and not view it lightly.

I think that if you're going to support the war you should be willing to sit down and have that conversation.

Only if you're willing to sit down and calmly explain to people who daily live in fear of death, torture or institutionalized rape that they're really not worth the sacrifice of our tough-as-nails, volunteer military; that the oppressed should tough it out. Or whatever the alternative to liberation is.

Nearly as old as time itself is the distinction between murder and unintentional death.

If you support the war, are you willing to go fight yourself (or send one of your kids)?

Are friends good enough?

What is it, anyway, with this favorite ad-hominem dodge? As if, by the same logic, civilians are unworthy of the benefits provided by law enforcement or fire departments - those who as a matter of operation daily risk their lives - because we are occupied with non-risk situations. The military has been charged with the task of America's national security, and the solution is becoming clear to be the democratization of the Middle East; thereby suffocating the radical Islamofascist culture and its appendages. It is their job and we trust them to carry it out.

I'm just saying that it should be an absolute last resort

That's the other ambiguous dodge popular in this twilight. No one in the not-really-sort-of-pretty-much-but-almost-almost-just-with-the-slightest-bit-of-deliberation-yet-not-anti-war crowd has offered any substantive deadline. I'm disturbed to conclude that either one does not exist or that the "Damn! That tears it, Saddam!" moment involves mushroom clouds.

Twelve years. Countless United Nations resolutions snatched up and used as geopolitical toilet paper. It's now or Neville, Steve.

Well said, Michael.

Yeee haw! Round 'em up boys! Well heck, why stop at Iraq? Let's just move on to all the other Axis of evil countries too. Heck, why stop there? Just keep going until every dictator and "evil dooer" is gone. Waste ‘em all I say. We could approach it just like Ariel Sharon. Just keep attacking until they see it our way. Seems to work for him…. right?

Who cares what the US did in the Eighties Iran-Iraq war? It was the effectiveness of the UN in stopping the fighting I was talking about. They have NEVER stopped a war and NEVER kept a peace. They are a bunch of kleptocrat bureaucrats who only look to their next cocktail party, where they can criticize the US for not handing enough US taxpayers' money to them.

Thanks, Robin.

Yeee haw! Round 'em up boys! Well heck, why stop at Iraq? Let's just move on to all the other Axis of evil countries too. Heck, why stop there? Just keep going until every dictator and "evil dooer" is gone.

Interesting bit of irony here, Steve: you've descended completely into ridicule. Not a helpful method to win support. But the sarcastic bit about wrecking the Axis and all other evildoers? Liberating their countries? That is what the civilized world must comprehend as its objective over the next decades. Congratulations: through mockery you've stumbled on the answer!

People don't view it lightly. And yes, I would fight if I were not female, too old, and possessed of a number of ailments that would disqualify me from enlisting. But that's not really putting my money where my mouth is, because I don't have to actually go through with it. Nor do I have any children to send.

My oldest will be of age in a few more years.

Who would not be filled with trepidation about their son going off to war?

Yet who wants their child to live in a world where such evil is not confronted?

I registered for the draft myself, but I have been truly lucky to live, thus far, in a generation that benefited from the sacrifice of prior generations. They made the sacrifice because someone had to.

Jason's bit of disinformation:

>> To be fair, we were balls-to-the-wall supporting Iraq in that one, including having US destroyers directly fire at Iran (according to Kevin Pollack.)

can't be allowed to stand unrebutted. The U.S. position was simply that, if the two countries were going to fight, it was better than neither of them win. That's about the extent of our support of Iraq (which was a client of the Soviet Union).

Yes, we fired at Iranians who were setting mines in the way of the oil tankers (and one was hit by a U.S. warship, iirc). The mess that is the Middle East is not the fault of the U.S.

I agree, war should be the last possible resort. Right after flinging unwrapped rolls of toilet paper at them.

Wait...how many resorts are we allowed to...resort to, before we can say we're all out of non-war resorts? "Last", in a continuum of possible actions, would never be accessible. Therefore, war as the last possible resort is equivalent to war never. Because, you know, there's always something else you can do, no matter how pointless and ineffective.

A lot of points to respond to here, but I'll try to keep it short:

1) I never argued that we shouldn't have war. My ONLY point was that we shouldn't pat ourselves on that back because of how few people we have killed.

2) I defy you to point out where the Bush administration's main goal in attacking Iraq is the liberation of its people. There are billions of people in the world on the brink of death for a variety of reasons, and we don't seem to be rushing to spend trillions of dollars helping them. Certainly we could do the "most good" by helping others outside of Iraq and not have to fight a war. Why is Iraq all of the sudden the most important humanitarian crisis?

3) I think it's far too simple minded to put only two options on the table: have a war or ignore Saddam. Even the Bush administration has been trying inspections.

4) I didn't mean to defend Saddam's rights. That's the problem with analogies, they just don't stand up to scrutiny.

5) The UN is not useless. It's not up to the UN to singlehandedly solve the world's problems. It's a handy tool for coming to a consensus and getting multilateral support (as we have gotten in the past for the Korean War, Gulf War, Afghanistan, etc).

Josh: You post some reasoned responses, and I'll just pick one, which is more subtle than some of the others that the rest of the thread can respond to.
"Certainly we could do the "most good" by helping others outside of Iraq and not have to fight a war. Why is Iraq all of the sudden the most important humanitarian crisis?"

This "certainty" is in reality a subjective value judgement, particularly as you give no specifics. You haven't bounded the estimated costs of a war in Iraq, nor have you bounded the benefits you are saying abound elsewhere.

But in the Iraqi specific case, this is one of the rare situations in which a real regional military threat can be dealt with simultaneously with a grave humanitarian one. If you cannot see the linkage between Iraqi foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian position, you might read up on such notorious incidents of Iraqi policy such as subsidies for suicide bombing and Iraqi support for organized terror organizations in the Mideast. Both geographically and economically, Iraq is the hub of the Mideast and has been so for a millenia. Its potential now is unfulfilled and its people impoverished. Upon this power vaccuum sits a criminal despot who threatens both Moslem and non Moslem neighbors. In your estimate, do these considerations weigh so lightly against your own undefined alternatives?

Josh, I agree with Tom that you've provided one of the most compelling points of contention in regards to removing Saddam Hussein: why him and not others?, particularly when Saddam's downfall is reasoned through a socio-political manner and not a strictly military or diplomatic one.

This is especially germaine because many conservatives, including President Bush, were at least confirmed opponents of so-called "nation building." I myself scoffed at Gore during the second presidential debate and cheered when Bush stated that we "cannot be all things to all people" (paraphrased). On September 12th and the weeks beyond, much of the Right opened its eyes to the concept of creative destruction in the name of democracy.

However, the Right can be forgiven, I'm confident, in light of the eras spanning last century that did not lend themselves to democratization being embraced by those leaders considering themselves practical.

The Second World War was largely "Europe's war," and the more I read about soldiers and citizens, hearts and minds were mostly focused on the war's completion; viewing it as an obligation than an opportunity. Growing up assuming otherwise, I was surprised to learn that the end of a soldier's tour was often foremost on his mind, God save the rest. America's entrance was reluctant and to many, forced; they couldn't care less what went on twelve thousand miles away if national interests remained undisturbed. The transformation of Germany and Japan would seem miraculous, but for those countries' obvious need for enforced stability. What better foundation than leadership drawn from consent of the governed? Live free; now leave us the hell alone.

Those two instances of creative destruction stand out, for the rise of Communism shut out all hopes of democracy's expansion for the next forty-five years. What good was an infant state when the Soviets or the Chinese might drift in like a plague and corrupt elections through a Trojan Horse socialist party? Who were we really fighting in Korea and Vietnam? The Communists effectively checked democracy and America was led by presidents of both parties who decided that a pragmatic holding action was preferrable to failed states or open war. Realpolitik domination.

In this sense, freedom gained in, say, the Phillipines, was due to the fortune of circumstances and a rare will of natives to successfully enact civil rebellion.

But Communism fell; the USSR and China became disaffected with one another nearly two decades before the Soviets finally collapsed. Though arguably reserved and traditionalist in his foreign policy, George Herbert Walker Bush must have appreciated the crumbling of Communism as he ordered the United States to defend burgeoning freedom in Panama (the Berlin Wall had begun to tumble not two months before).

So for literally less than fifteen years, America has been able to pursue the elimination of dictatorship by wielding military and political strength - without fear of reprisal from a major power, since a challenger does not currently exist. But between our citizenry and our political and intellectual classes, the vast majority of Americans came of age (or actually operated) in a time when practical state liberation was unheard of. I would further argue that the various feeble attempts at "nation building" that dotted the end of Bush's reign and the whole of Clinton's in effect established the definition for many. What, engage in half-hearted military actions that fail to dislodge a despot and then turn the mess over to the autocrat-populated United Nations? That's "nation building"? Good Night, you've got to be kidding!

It was not until September 11th that Americans, notably conservatives, forcibly recognized the danger of autocracy's continued existance in an early Information Age. Two threats face us, one concrete, the other yet largely conceptual: the threat from Middle East terrorism and the threat from dictators or their extremism-vulnerable people. The former is caused by the latter - the Middle East began its descent into unfree hell fifty years ago and is now at a nadir of self-destruction - and the former, the terrorists, are more pressing.

So we begin with Iraq. Like Tom said - and I wholeheartedly agree - Saddam is the Middle East keystone. When he, his third-largest-army-in-the-world and his terrorist bankroll fall, the Arab, Persian and North African despots are mortal and democracy will take root if pushed: regimes are removed, civil rebellions are supported. We will win the war on terror and begin what you seek, Josh, with your question of what will be done about the many other nations unstable because of a lack of freedom: set a precedent for the world by demonstrably outlawing the idea of governance through compulsion.

Fate or God, whichever you prefer, has dealt us a challenge that necessitates an immediate strategic solution which, when infused with an ideology recognizing the larger forces and causes at work, reconciles the greater problem of bondage of men on earth.

We did not seek it but all the same: the end of dictatorship begins with Saddam.

Jason's bit of disinformation:

>> To be fair, we were balls-to-the-wall supporting Iraq in that one, including having US destroyers directly fire at Iran (according to Kevin Pollack.)

This can't be allowed to stand unrebutted. The U.S. position was simply that, if the two countries were going to fight, it was better than neither of them win. That's about the extent of our support of Iraq (which was a client of the Soviet Union).

Yes, we fired at Iranians who were setting mines in the way of the oil tankers (and one was hit by a U.S. warship, iirc). The mess that is the Middle East is not the fault of the U.S.

I didn't say the "Middle East was the fault of the US"; I said that we seriously supported Iraq in their war with Iran, and implied glass houses, etc., for that specific war.

rom Pollack's book:

In 1982, the US removed Iraq from the list of terror supporting states.
In 1983, the US began basically offering Iraq $400 million in annual free food.
In 1983, the US sold Baghdad ten Hueys and sixty MD-500 helicopters in a wink-wink civilian configuration.
In 1985, the US began issuing Baghdad high-tech export licenses.
The US didn't do a thing when an Iraqi pilot accidentally killed 37 sailors on the USS Stark.
The US strongly encouraged its allies to support Iraq in the war.
The US largely ignored Hussein's use of WMD during the war; we issued a formal denunciation and pressed the europeans to tighten their controls on WMD stuff, but didn't do anything else. Reagan blocked a congressional resolution imposing sanctions on Iraq for the WMD.
Then, finally, in 1988, in response to the Iranian mining of the strait of hormuz, and one of our ships hitting one of them, the US navy went after the Iranian Navy.

So, on the specific point of evidence, I misspoke: our shooting at the Iranian navy was not done because we supported Iraq.

However, on the larger point, it's silly to suggest that our involvement in the Iran-Iraq war was anything other than complete support of Iraq, as pointed out above.

That we apparently didn't care too much about the million dead of the war is why it's a bit rich to decry the UN for not doing anything about it. Not that all this somehow invalidates the validity of invading Iraq, which I favor, but's it an object lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

As usual Jason has everything wrong or blown out of proportion. Iraq and Iran went to war without any help from us. Jimmy Carter says that Iraq's 1980 attack screwed him getting the hostages released from Iran, and cost him the presidency, btw. The U.S. didn't get involved in this until it was pretty clear Iraq would lose unless someone helped them.

If Iraq had lost, the Persian Gulf might have been controlled by Iran's ayotollahs. Who, in case Jason is too young to remember, were calling the U.S. The Great Satan. These are the unpleasant choices grown-ups have to face up to.

BTW, mining the Strait of Hormuz was a casus belli (Latin for, we get to shoot at you). You do understand the significance of that, Jason?

You bring up a good point, Michael and Tom, which is that Iraq seriously is the keystone to the Middle East. I totally agree that taking down Saddam and installing some sort of democracy backed by U.S. military might would change the face of that area and speed democratization.

I also agree that we can do it, although I think it will be a much tougher and longer process than we would like to believe. It will also take a serious commitment (in troops, time, and dollars) to see it to the logical conclusion after the war as well.

In my mind, the question is: is that a valid enough reason to go to war? Just because it would probably help our cause and we could do it, does that justify doing it? I'm not so sure. It would be much easier to answer if the majority of the world agreed with us. As of yet, I think there are too many questions to rush into a war just to satisfy the administration's vision of a changed geopolitical landscape.

I just don't see Iraq as that much of a threat. The White House has yet to convince me that the threat is real and the timing is right. There are real problems with the economy and terrorism, which they haven't been dealing with effectively at all. I view Pakistan as a vastly more dangerous country, and we do nothing but coddle them.

Maybe, just maybe if the Bush administration hadn't bungled our North Korea relations, and if they were doing a better job at "reconstructing" Afghanistan, then I might have some confidence that they could even pull it off.

I'm not saying we shouldn't take advantage of an opportunity, I'm just saying that there are also valid arguments against having war with Iraq (or at least having it now). It makes it hard to justify the war in general, let alone whether we would actually pull it off successfully.

Now that's really weird. A/I's blogging gremlins just credited Jason with my post!

Jason's cited helicopter deal for 10 Huey transport and 50 Kiowa observation helicopter equivalents is interesting, but I'd note that neither of these helicopters have direct air ground attack capabilities unless you are using the Huey's for chemical agent dispersal, or something unorthodox like that. I'd love to get some better details on that transaction, but it appears that Iraq has used these helicopters for their transport and observation roles, as they certainly don't show up on attack helicopter lists like p 143 of:
http://www.csis.org/burke/mb/me_mb_me_anlytovrview.pdf

The same study cites Iraq with 100-160 "old and worn transport helicopters", which presumeably could have been acquired from anywhere. So I'm not sure what Jason's "wink-wink" point is.

Just because it would probably help our cause and we could do it, does that justify doing it?

Josh - we need to do it as a matter of survival. Micromanagement of catastrophic weapons has finally come upon us by way of technology; anything is possible. Iraq has been part of the culturally-supported terrorist threat encroaching upon the West since the 70s and which has, as hopefully the administration will show soon, grown in epic proportions through the 90s to culminate in the first horrifying harbinger: September 11th. We've run out of time.

Again, it is circumstance that has connected our very preservation as a civilization with the opportunity to free others. They are freed, we are saved from the inevitable dangers growing from out of unfree nations.

Oh, for chrissakes, Patrick: would it make your head explode to admit "we supported Iraq because we really didn't like Iran?" You can't spin 1+1 into 3.

The same study cites Iraq with 100-160 "old and worn transport helicopters", which presumeably could have been acquired from anywhere. So I'm not sure what Jason's "wink-wink" point is.

I'm just regurgitating Kevin Pollack; take it up with him. Regardless, they're pocket change compared to the other things we did.

>> Oh, for chrissakes, Patrick: would it make your head explode to admit "we supported Iraq because we really didn't like Iran?" You can't spin 1+1 into 3.

IOW, you are now conceding that everything I told you is correct, and you're now backpeddling furiously from your first claim, which was:

>> To be fair, we were balls-to-the-wall supporting Iraq in that one, including having US destroyers directly fire at Iran (according to Kevin Pollack.)

But Jason, the whole US role, even if your items were absolutely true, is orders of magnitude smaller than the role of the USSR, PRC, or even France during that period. Again, "wink-wink", what is the point?

Michael, if only it were that simple. You're assuming that Saddam Hussein (1) has catastophic weapons, and (2) is going to use them on us or sell them to terrorists that will use them on us.

On point 1, we have no evidence of a successful nuclear program in Iraq. So far, Bush has only mentioned chemical and biological weapons, which, while should be considered to cause "mass" destruction (thousands to a few million if used in total), are nowhere near the truly catastrophic effects of one nuclear bomb.

On point 2, this just hasn't happened. It's been 12 years of successful containment (where success is narrowly defined "we haven't been hit by Iraq's WMDs yet"). While there are some significant links to terrorists, it's really not a hotbed of terrorism.

Three more points to consider. First, show me where Iraq contributed to September 11th in any direct way.

Second, September 11th showed that one doesn't need to have WMDs to create massive destruction on our soil. Disarming Iraq may make us safer from those specific weapons, but doesn't necessarily make us safer overall. If we truly want to be safer on our own soil, perhaps we should actually fund our state and local police forces with the money promised them by Bush, and listen to the CIA and FBI when they tell us where the most dangerous threats are.

Finally, if you were going to start picking nations that have WMD to attack, why not choose Pakistan, which (1) actually DOES have nuclear weapons, (2) has provably sold WMD technology to others recently, (3) has MAJOR ties to terrorists including al Qaeda, (4) is a safe haven for Taliban and al Qaeda forces today, and (5) whose citizens are openly hostile to the United States? But no, what are we doing instead: lifting economic sanctions and promising billions of dollars in aid! Justify that.

For chrissakes:

1) We gave Iraq large amounts of food money under the direct assumption it'd free up more money for guns.
2) We gave them carte blanche on export licenses.
3) We sold them military hardware.
4) We pressured our allies to go along.

If that isn't "support," I don't know what is.

Jason: Numerically try to put that into the context of what the USSR, PRC, and various European countries gave or sold, and that will be the "worst case" of US "support" for Iraq than anybody has made to my knowledge. If I had to guess why these numbers have never been pasted onto the allegations, I'd hypothesize based on the figures that I saw for post 1985 that US aid was numerically insignificant. But it is your point to make, not mine. BTW, Christ has nothing to do with this issue, directly.

Moreover Jason, which "allies" are you talking about doing all this support? France?

Let's not forget that but for the heroics of the Israeli Air Force, Iraq would have had nukes long before the Gulf War, courtesy of the French helping them build a nuclear power plant ideal for producing weapons grade plutonium. When asked for the technology, they made a half-hearted effort to decline, then folded like a cheap suit when the Iraqis applied pressure. Knowing this makes me rather disinclined to give a damn what the French think about this whole situation--they've already proven to be rather indifferent to the implications of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Ah, so now the defense is "we weren't the worst at it?"

I would have sent the money to Iraq myself if President, seeing how the alternative was the Ayatollah. That doesn't change my point that you can't condemn the UN for just about anything related to the Iran-Iraq war; god knows our actions, while justifiable on national security grounds, certainly weren't pleasant.

"Finally, if you were going to start picking nations that have WMD to attack, why not choose Pakistan"

Because attacking nations that already have nukes is a really bad idea. Nukes make effective deterrents for a reason.

So, I'm wondering: if you picked at your fingernails and got a hangnail, would you then avoid getting it lanced on the grounds that it was you that caused it in the first place? Just curious.

Because not solving a problem because you possibly had some causal relationship with it is just asinine. Is this really your argument, Jason?

"Because attacking nations that already have nukes is a really bad idea. Nukes make effective deterrents for a reason."

That's understood, but if they're as bad as North Korea in that respect, shouldn't we be trying to "contain" them or something then? It seems to me that we're only encouraging Pakistan to be a blowback situation by supporting them now.

Comments are Closed.