But, wait!! The media told me everyone was AGAINST invading Iraq...

1. It was a joke.

2. Bin Laden didn't even target the US until we put troops on the "holy soil" of S.A. Before that, the USSR was the enemy.

3. It seems most problems with Europe come when they ally themselves with the US.

4. I do think that terrorists see attacking Europe as inferior to the US...unless Europe is strongly allied with the US "against" them or there is some major security hole that makes it too appealing to present some kind of message.

5. I am always right...have you not learned that yet? I am especially right when you consider that I have no agenda and am downright apathetic towards US invasion of Iraq. Why contemplate/debate the inevitable? It is like death...is it good or bad...well...who cares? I just live my life and keep trying to improve myself, be happy, and improve the lives of others. I can actually control that. Don't you want to buy a motivational book from me now? Incidentally, that coud also be a political theory book. I would call it Nihilistic Individualist Utilitarian Idealism. It would sell millions.

 

Thank goodness the Japanese attacked us? :

http://www.gwu.edu/~pad/202/readings/foreign.html

Similarly, if I recall coreectly, all of the European polls advocated against war with Hitler. Churchill was advocating war, but he wasn't prime minister...yet.

I don't have a problem with ignoring public opinion polls. You are never a leader if you cannot ignore them, but you must be certain that what you are doing is the right course of action.

So the issue is: what are the deciding factors, and how certain are we?

 

How can you be sure?

The problem is, none of us are privy to the information that our leaders have.

A radical nation is a much different animal than a radical terrorist group. The resources available to it are magnitudes greater than any terrorist group.

 

Hmm?

 

I'm not sure, you are right, but if there is compelling private info, they should at least share it with senators, other heads of state, etc, or even me, but right now I have yet to hear of any despite the hard sell. Other than bluster, I haven't heard anything that makes Iraq more or less dangerous now, and apparently nobbody else has either.

The only facts I do have are that Saudi terrorists killed 3k more people here than Iraqis did last year.

I agree with you again on your second point too. yes, its much different. But I would characterize it more as a radical dictator than a radical nation state. It's also different in that it/he has much more to lose and acts accordingly. Iraq will not chem/bio bomb israel unless we attack it.

 

I understand that the case will be presented soon, but I doubt that we will ever hear everything. If we do have 'inside' information, I imagine that insider lives would be at stake with a fully open accounting. Still, I agree that we need more than we have now.

I certainly do not blame the Iraqi people. I now that many may dislike us, but it's not mutual. Unfortunately, I don't agree that a radical dictatorship has more to lose than a radical terrorist group, a nation would.

 

Well, you can add the Kuwaitis to the seemingly short list of people who will support U.S. action in Iraq:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/02/wirq202.xml

"Kuwait became the first Arab state yesterday to signal support for a US-led military coalition against Iraq, in marked contrast to the caution shown by other countries in the region."

and

"A Kuwaiti government official said: "If America asks for support Kuwait will give it. I expect the same response from all Gulf states. There may be the need publicly to be anti-war, but under-the-table deals are being struck.""

Very unsurprising. Expect public condemnations & private acquiescence from the Saudis as well.

 

I don't have a problem with ignoring public opinion polls. You are never a leader if you cannot ignore them, but you must be certain that what you are doing is the right course of action.

Cohen, ignoring opinion polls on random policy issues is one thing. Ignoring them on issues of war is a whole different story. You go into a war without the support of your people and all hell is going to break loose, no matter your intentions.

What Blair is "threatening" to do is exactly what many of us having been asking Bush to do - provide the evidence so people and countries have a reason -- or even an obligation -- to support it. Stop just saying "we just have to do it" and give some good reasons. Most people will support the war if they are given a compelling reason to do so.

If you wait until everyone is against you already, it may be too late to sway public opinion.

 

When you can't convince hawks like Trent Lott and Dick Armey, you are not presenting a compelling case. Since the white house seems to want to blame Iraq for everything and anything:

"According to Newsweek, when an FBI agent recently told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the meeting [between an Iraqi intelligence agent and hijacker Mohammed Atta] was "unlikely," Wolfowitz grilled him until he agreed it was technically possible, since the FBI can't cite Atta's whereabouts on April 9."

I have to believe that their case will not be that strong. If it was, we would have heard sometime during the last 2 month long PR blitz. In addition, I don't think there are that many agents to compromise, if the post sept 11 laments aabout the overreliance on satellites and the lack of human intellignece are to be believed.

Al Qaeda and the Iraqi "state" (saddam) are totally different actors. Sadaam is not a suicidal religious martyr, he is nnot even religious He is a realist (his hero is allegedly Stalin), bent on maintaining power, like he has for years, he has something to lose. Read Mark Bowden's excellent profile in the Atlantic Monthly from a few months back . Bin Laden is a wannabe martyr, more of a violent, scary idealist, though it appears even he is too cowardly for that. Bin Laden attacked because he effectively thought he had nothing to lose, that the US would just lob some cruise missiles and he would move to the next cave. He obviously badly miscalculated. Saddam, well, Saddam knows that any attack by him would pretty much mean the end of him. So he hasn't.

Answer me this, why hasn't a plane/boat/truck full of Iraqi nerve gas appeared in the US in the last few years? Saddam has certainly had the means, motive and opportunity. As has Kim Jong Il, as has Ayatollah whoever. States are in the buisiness of preserving themselves, first and foremost. These guys maybe crazy but they are not stupid.

IMO, the cost of preemption in this instance, (another shot to an uncertain economy, inflammation of Arab Israeli conflicts, and scenes of dead arab children on tv that will inspire a whole new strain of antiamerican sentiment, and more new terrorists, distracting fromt the "war on terrorism", not to mention the human cost of war) outweighs whatever benefits there are. Yes, the reduction in the small chance that Iraq will attack the US is nice, but not worth the cost, especially if it multiplies the chance that others will do the same.

 

glynch--

You wonder why some people never respond to you. Your post illustrates why. MAYBE Max's Miami scenario is a reach...but an imagination? A year ago you would have told me that I had a great imagination if I had told you that somebody was going to fly jetplanes into the World Trade Center towers. After 9/11 it amazes me that you don't think it is imminently possible that smallpox could be released in Miami.

 

Originally posted by Major
Cohen, ignoring opinion polls on random policy issues is one thing. Ignoring them on issues of war is a whole different story. You go into a war without the support of your people and all hell is going to break loose, no matter your intentions.

I was referring to foreign polls, though I see how you could draw that inference from my post.

What Blair is "threatening" to do is exactly what many of us having been asking Bush to do - provide the evidence so people and countries have a reason -- or even an obligation -- to support it. Stop just saying "we just have to do it" and give some good reasons. Most people will support the war if they are given a compelling reason to do so.

I'm not so sure. There were plenty of very obvious reasons to contain Hitler before WWII, but populations were too passive. Fear of the short-term downside is sometimes too much for public opinion to bear; long-term ramifications can be lost on them.

If you wait until everyone is against you already, it may be too late to sway public opinion.

Agreed. I assume that they are awaiting specific pieces of critical information from within Iraq. If they're only waiting for some analysts to finish a project, they're screwing up.

 

again...what has Bush done so far that's so wrong?? you guys screaming that he's attacking without building the case....HE HASN'T BEGUN THE ATTACK JUST YET!! the case is being built for him, and it's brought forth with more credibility because it's coming from OUTSIDE of the administration.

All the convincing of other countries in the world isn't going to convince Americans. That's what Bush has done wrong - he has made no attempt whatsoever to give Americans reasons to support this war. I don't care if he does it 3 months from now - if he's talking about it as a virtual certainty already, he needs to be building that case NOW rather than telling people to just trust him. 3 months from now, a larger faction of the public will be strongly against the war. At that point, its that much more difficult to convince them otherwise.

Blair understands this. Bush doesn't seem to.

 

I'm not so sure. There were plenty of very obvious reasons to contain Hitler before WWII, but populations were too passive. Fear of the short-term downside is sometimes too much for public opinion to bear; long-term ramifications can be lost on them.

Cohen -- on this, I agree in theory that we would certainly have been better off going into WW2 earlier. However, if we tried to send hundreds of thousands of Americans to Europe to go to war in the midst of a depression, I'm not sure we would have won WW2.

An army that doesn't believe in what it's doing and isn't backed at home isn't going to fight hard or well. Either a strong case had to be made to get US popular support (what Bush should be doing now) before Pearl Harbor, or something like Pearl Harbor had to happen.

This applies to the war on terrorism also. Without 9/11, no way Congress, the American people, or the rest of the world allow Bush to send the military hunting for OBL all over the place. It sucks that something that horrible is necessary, but I'm not sure the alternative is feasible (doing it without that hellish event).

 

First of all...I've NEVER heard the administration refer to attacking as a virtual certainty...not even once. In fact, they've talked about a careful, measured approach.

Well, the Bush administration basically has said there needs to be a regime change and that is a goal of the administration. They've also said they have to eliminate WMD, and that inspectors are not really a good option anymore. That doesn't leave much else.

Second..you assume that Blair and Bush aren't in cahoots on this one...that they're not cooperating. If it's UK intelligence reports, than it's the UK leader who will present those reports. If it were US reports, we'd be getting those from the US leader.

But the thing is that the American people need to hear it from their American President, because he's the one declaring the need for action and he's the one sending our troops.

Third..I don't care if it's 3 months, 6 months or 12 months...give the American public some evidence that Saddam is somehow connecting with Al Qaeda and he's building WOMD, and they'll support an effort to take him out. plain and simple.

The longer he waits, the more people get nervous and start believing he is a warmonger and just wants to get Hussein no matter what. Those kinds of things get engrained in people's minds. The longer he waits, the more world support turns, and even more people get nervous. Nothing good comes out of waiting. Just look at 3 months ago vs today - there was a hell of a lot more support out there then than now. That trend will continue.

 

For whatever its worth, I don't really care all that much about what decrepit, corrupt, out of touch arab monarchs think about attacking Iraq, I care more about their citizens, especially those who may be tempted to try to kill me someday. Prince Bandar didn't hijack a plane, but 15 of his loyal subjects did.

 

Originally posted by Major
Cohen -- on this, I agree in theory that we would certainly have been better off going into WW2 earlier. However, if we tried to send hundreds of thousands of Americans to Europe to go to war in the midst of a depression, I'm not sure we would have won WW2.

Don't believe in Keynesian economics?

Generally, then end of the Great Depression is defined by the US entry into WWII as the government geared-up for war.

An army that doesn't believe in what it's doing and isn't backed at home isn't going to fight hard or well. ...

Again, I said foreign polls.

 

Catch-22?

 

Major's post above is right on. This is basically what I was talking about, Max. Bush talked of the Iraq action as such a certainty that one of the major architects of his Iraq military strategy used the fact that Bush had already promised an action as a reason for carrying it out -- he actually said that for us to change course now, after Bush had virtually promised action, would weaken our position in the war on terrorism. Check my "Is Papa Bush Even For War With Iraq" thread for the quote. It's in the Kissinger article. This is the mismanagement I allude to.

First he says we need to do this (because Saddam was definitely linked to Al Qaeda and will definitely have nukes within months), sends Rice out to bolster his assertion that nothing less than military action will be sufficient, hears strong criticism from all the previously mentioned parties and just stops talking about it, suspiciously dropping the allegations about Al Qaeda and nukes. Then he floats out trial baloons saying that legally he doesn't need congressional support, sends Cheney out to say inspections are not just insufficient but could even harm our eventual military action, sends Fleischer out to say that even Powell agrees (when he clearly doesn't) and finally, after all that, agrees to meet with Congress about it. He screwed up. I hope he'll make it right, but so far he's doing it wrong.