The Bush Administration is contemplating action to remove the current government of Iraq. There are positives and negatives to be weighed in the decision. <b> Positives from forcing a change in government: </b> 1) A major player in <i>WMD</i> (Weapons of Mass Destruction) will be removed from the scene. 2) Tensions and fears of Iraqi power by surrounding countries should be lessened. 3) It should enable a reduction in US troop deployments in the Persian Gulf area. One of the major issues with conservative Muslims has been the presence of the US military in areas considered holy. By reducing its forces, the United States can work toward a better image in that area. This should also lessen fundamentalist resentment against the current Persian Gulf governments that allow the US basing rights. 4) The stalemate between the United Nations and Iraq in regards to the Gulf War sanctions can be resolved quickly. This should enable the new Iraqi government to get the economy moving forward. Food distribution and other human factors can be taken care of rather than liimited to the scraps that the current elite tosses them. <b> Negatives involve in forcing a change in government: </b> 1) The United States will be the main force on this project with perhaps some minor support from Britain. The rest of the world is opposed and support will be minimal at best. Does the Bush Administration have the spirit for going it alone? 2) The Unites States will have to cross plenty of <i>T's</i> and dot some <i>I's</i> to make this action fall under something allowed under violations of the Gulf War treaty that Iraq signed. Technically feasible, yet plenty of diplomatic legwork involved. 3) Once started, it has to be seen through until the conclusion. It will be a much more involved action than the removal of the Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The American public would probably have a lesser dgree of support for this than it does for the action against bin Laden and his supporters. 4) Usage of American bases in some Middle Eastern countries for attacks against Iraq would not be allowed, making the logistics more difficult. 5) The internal opposition forces in Iraq would need to be bolstered considerably if the Afghanistan model is used. That would be American airpower coupled with Special Forces on the ground working with Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south. American ground forces added in as needed. 6) The regional balance of power would be changed and Iran would have to stay benign to prevent a new threat to the Arab Gulf States. 7) the new Iraq government would be a fragile thing and it would have to be nurtured. There has alwasy been a desire by the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran to form a Greater Kurdistan and those countries would not be happy to see more empowerment for the Kurds in Iraq that would occur under a new government. The positive factors for a change in Iraq's government are more long range, while most of the negative issues are more short term and transitory. Mango
Mango: Your overall analysis seems pretty good, but what about the prospect of Iraq actually using WMD? I think part of the reason Bush didn't completely remove him from power in the first place was the fact that he didn't want to risk it. I'm sure Hussein realizes that if he had, he would have been obliterated. But if he believes he has nothing to lose... Fifty tons of anthrax and, just mayve, nuclear weapons? he could do a great deal of damage.
IF GWB doesn't go after him now and dismantle his military capabilities....and IF Saddam successfully unleashes some weapon of mass destruction on America....it will be the sad legacy of both Bush administrations. These are IF's that are not worth risking, in my opinion.
Right, but the odds of him unleashing WMD w/o the threat of complete removal from power and/or death are slim. Saddam isn't a religious nut: in fact, he's somewhat anti-clerical. He's not gonna do it because he believes in dying for Allah, which a WMD attack on America would be, in essence. This makes him easier to deal with. But if you give him nothing to lose... he might decide "why the hell not."
So many issues, I'll just go down the list... Positives: The #1 reason from the US's standpoint. Saddam hates our guts, and is vigorously pursuing his NBC programs. Aside from the UNSC's permanent 5, Iraq probably tops the global list for WMD producers... If we don't remove this threat, it's only a matter of time until they are used against us. If they haven't been already... In the Western Gulf states, most definitely. Many governments would quietly support our action there for this reason alone, although they would publicly decry it. Saddam is without a doubt the greatest threat to regional stability, since his goal is to take control of the Arab world... Iran would be a mixed bag. The mullahs wouldn't feel too comfortable with Americans on both sides... My personal favorite - get our troops the hell out of the Persian Gulf, and leave the Arabs with one less issue to hate us for. But we can't do that until Saddam is gone. More to the point, this is the only way it can be resolved. The sanctions can't be lifted until Iraq is certified as WMD-free, and Saddam has vowed to never allow inspectors in again, so... The impasse can only broken by either US action or by Iraqi action, and I don't have alot of faith that Saddam will suddenly change his mind. Negatives: Not really a problem. Third Corps could do it alone, and most governments would support us behind the scenes. The problem is not so much with governmental support, it's with popular support. No one in a governmental position anywhere in the region would really object to our action, but they know their constituencies would, and would have to "condemn" our action. But nothing would come of it. Saddam's propaganda machine has been remarkably effective. It has blinded much of the world to the fact that conditions in a post-Saddam Iraq would significantly improve, rather than exacerbate the problems there. See Afghanistan pre- and post-Taliban if you don't believe me... Not really. Iraq has failed to live up to its agreements under the conditions of the cease-fire (Resolution 687), and the UN parties - meaning the US - is authorized to act to enforce that resolution. That is the legal justification for the "no-fly" zones, and any further action would have the exact same legal claims. Under the UN resolutions, if Iraq refuses to allow weapons inspectors to finish their work, the US is perfectly justified in using "all means necessary" to resolve the situation. Not everyone will like it, but not everyone liked the OJ verdict... That's the law. Agree. But it will not be as difficult as many might think. For example, a good portion of the regular Iraqi Army will likely defect once they see that we are determined. If we have the ultimate goal of replacing the government there and actually intend to see that goal through until the end, then the vast majority of the Iraqis will be on our side. They hate living under Saddam. This is the mistake we made with the uprisings in 1991. If they see we are serious, then they will take our side. According to Gallup, the large majority of Americans would support it. After they realized how well things were going, a large portion of those who were ambivalent or against it would change their views. The key would be our resolve. I don't expect the Saudis to cooperate. But Kuwait will, and that will be enough. This is more of a hassle than anything else; even if none of Iraq's neighbors allowed us to operate out of their territory, we could still achieve our objectives. If worse came to worst, Iraq does have a water-entry area - the Persian Gulf. And we have Marines. And two divisions that can drop from the air... But Kuwait will cooperate when it sees we're serious. Also true, but maybe not as much of a factor as one might expect. See above for Iraqi Army defections... Iran would not dare interfere. They will most certainly rail against us for doing it, but what can they do? See below... Iraq would make a good candidate for the first secular democratic government in the ME. Given that such a democracy succeeded (with US and UN guarantees), the entire region would become surprisingly stable; the Kurds and Shiites would have a voice in govt, the Gulf states wouldn't have to worry about being taken over anymore, our oil would be safe, and Iran (and Israel) wouldn't have to worry about Saddam lobbing bio- and chem- tipped SCUDs into their territory anymore. In addition, Iran's budding youth-democracy movement could be fostered. The mullahs could be driven out, and we could resume normal relations with that country. It is not a fluke that the only pro-US demonstrations in the wake of 9/11 in the ME have taken place in Iran... We could have both Iraq and Iran as friends again. But not until Saddam is gone... And then we can all be happy.
haven: I think you underestimate Saddam's hatred for us, as well as his capabilities. His only chance to use WMD against us right now is to do it covertly - smuggle anthrax/smallpox/botulinum toxin or serin, or a nuclear weapon, and use it in a terrorist attack. Problem is that he can do that whether we attack or not, and he still bears the same chance of getting caught. He does not have the capability yet to attack us via conventional (military) means to do this, so his only avenue for delivery of WMD is covert - terrorism. And that terrorist training camp at Salman Pak is there for a reason: he intends to attack us anyway. In his mind the Gulf War never ended - we are still at war to him. He is going to attack us whether we attack or not, and he will only think of it as a counteroffensive, not a terrorist attack. But it's just a matter of time. He must be preempted.
agreed...he already feels attacked...i think the connections with Iraq and Sept. 11th are enough to be concerned about...if he has a chance to make a legacy for himself, he'll do it. and mass destruction in the US is a way for him to do it.
Treeman: Now you've gone into the realm of opinion. Those claims are widely disputed. I prefer not to debate you on the subject, simply because you could be right. You could also be wrong. It's almost impossible to know. Personally, I'll always place my bet on non-religious nuts not risking the status quo. Imo, as long as Saddam feels secure, he won't attack. He could do something covertly... but the risk of getting caught isn't worth it. Kim Il-Sung was the same way. You're more of a hawk than I am. We could argue about that for hours, but it would devolve into "yes he will," "no he won't."
and why spend the resources to develop these weapons with absolutely no intent to ever use them?? do they serve to deter, as our nuclear arsenal has??
haven: Just for clarification, which part did you think was just opinion? The part about how he hates us and doesn't see the 1991 war as over? Just think, we've been bombing him for 11 years, and keeping him in a box he doesn't want to be in. That issue isn't "disputed". If it was something else I said...
Treeman: The opinion that he would actually risk unleashing NMD is an opinoin. You're citing valid evidence, then jumping to an unsupported conclusion. Good literature on the subject goes both ways. You usually have pretty good arguments. You also have the nasty habit of not acknowledging that contrary arguments exist that are perfectly valid as well, on certain issues. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taker. But, then, so was Kim Il-Sung, and he never unleashed hell.
MadMax: Yep. Having nuclear weapons dramatically increases one's ability to deter. Nukes are a piss poor offensive threat, because the potential gain is never, ever worth it in conventional terms. Saddam is secular, not religious. It wouldn't be worth it to him. And I repeat, bigger risk-takers than Saddam, like Kim Il-Sung and Mao have developed nukes, without ever launching them.
haven: I think you missed one of my more salient points: he has nothing to lose by unleashing WMD, because he cannot be positively identified as the aggressor if he does. He can not lob any SCUDs at us (which would be identifiable), but he can smuggle a large package - pick your NBC weapon for the package - to Mexico and haul it across the border. Without getting caught. Repeat: without getting caught. A "last gasp" attack is unnecessary; he can get away with it while he's got lots of life left in him yet... Combine that fact with his undeniable hatred towards us, and you get... a disaster waiting to happen. These are not just my opinions. These scenarios have been taken very seriously for years within the national security establishment, and have been (thankfully) given a new impetus by 9/11. If anything good comes from that date, it will be that we stop an even worse attack from happening.
terrorism gives him plausibile deniability...he's been hiding behind that for a long time, now. we know he associates with other jackasses...we know those jackasses would be willing to use these weapons...even if he's not, his existence and his continual buildup of these weapons are a threat to the US.
Simply can't be allowed to happen. The buildup of Saddam's WMD, that is... We could debate Saddam's willingness to use them for ages - or at least, until the first smallpox case was recieved in a Tulsa hospital... Then the debate would be pretty meaningless, wouldn't it? pre-empt
Just to refresh everyone's memory (and to let those who were little kids in 1991 know): http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/687e.pdf UNSC Resolution 687 - read it or stay out of the discussion. It gives us a green light if Saddam doesn't cooperate. Read it. It's about the most straightforward UN document I've ever read...
