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

A good summary aricle debunking the arguments of the prowar crowd.

Case for invading Iraq is full of holes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Steve Chapman
Originally published September 3, 2002



CHICAGO - In the usual sequence, a nation is presented with a powerful cause for war and then proceeds to fight.
After Sept. 11, Americans didn't need tortured explanations of why the United States should invade Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, the Bush administration began by making plans to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and realized only later that it might need to explain why. Judging from Vice President Dick Cheney's recent effort to rally support, it's still groping for a good excuse.

Mr. Cheney went before the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars to announce that Mr. Hussein is a bad man who has chemical and biological agents and hopes to develop nuclear weapons as well. Nobody really denies that, but most of the world views the prospect without undue hysteria.

The vice president said it would be intolerable for Mr. Hussein to expand his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Why? Because "he is amassing them to use against our friends, our allies, and against us."

If he were to get nukes, Mr. Hussein would "seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail," Mr. Cheney said.

But several countries have nuclear weapons, and none has found them very useful in making others do their bidding. Israel hasn't been able to force its neighbors to accept its treatment of the Palestinians. India hasn't coerced Pakistan to give up its claims to Kashmir. China hasn't succeeded in reclaiming Taiwan.

The argument is that Mr. Hussein is so reckless that he would be more successful. But what stops a nuclear power from carrying out a nuclear attack, or attempting nuclear blackmail, is not inborn self-restraint. It's the prospect of nuclear retaliation.

What evidence do we have that the Iraqi tyrant is influenced by such piddly considerations? Only his own behavior. We don't have to wonder if he can be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction. He already has been. During the Persian Gulf war, he had chemical and biological weapons that he could have used against Saudi Arabia, against Israel or against U.S. forces. But he knew the United States and Israel had nuclear missiles that could reach Baghdad, and himself.

The administration makes much of Mr. Hussein's use of poison gas against Iran and against Kurdish insurgents at home. But he did so on the assumption that his opponents couldn't respond with anything comparable. He won't have that assurance if he threatens a nuclear attack on us or our friends.

The New Republic heaps contempt on the notion that "there is the rational gassing of innocents and the irrational gassing of innocents," preferring "to insist that the use of weapons of mass destruction denotes a general derangement." Oh? Was President Truman deranged when he dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If Mr. Hussein were crazy, he would have used his weapons of mass destruction in 1991 rather than swallow a humiliating defeat.

It's argued that a nuclear-armed Hussein could invade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and force the United States to stay out by threatening to vaporize New York. If that strategy were feasible, though, the Soviet Union would have overrun Western Europe during the Cold War.

Besides, after more than a decade of economic sanctions, Iraq no longer has the offensive capability to mount any serious military campaign. For that, Mr. Hussein would need a lot of tanks, aircraft and other weapons.

But as University of Chicago strategist Robert Pape points out, "Unlike biological weapons, he can't use tanks if they're buried in the sand. He can use them only if they're out in the open and he conducts training with them."

And if he does that, we can easily blow them to pieces before he can use them.

If the problem were that Mr. Hussein could threaten his neighbors, you would expect his neighbors to be even more worried about him than we are. In fact, nearby countries such as Saudi Arabia are among the most vocal opponents of a U.S. invasion. Aside from Israel, other countries in the Middle East see him as no great danger.

So why does Mr. Hussein want weapons of mass destruction? For their only real function - deterring other countries from attacking him. If he had nuclear weapons, the United States would have to drop the idea of invading Iraq to overthrow its government. But if the only value of an Iraqi bomb is Mr. Hussein's self-preservation, it's hardly worth going to war over.

For months, we've been wondering why the administration has been so reluctant to make the case for invading Iraq. Now we have the answer: Because there isn't one.


Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. His column appears Tuesdays in The Sun.

 

Originally posted by glynch
A good summary aricle debunking the arguments of the prowar crowd.

Good... if you have a preconceived opinion. Guess which one?

... but most of the world views the prospect without undue hysteria.

Most of the world does not have to deal with Iraq if and when they attack someone.

Most of the world is not a target, like us.

...But several countries have nuclear weapons, and none has found them very useful in making others do their bidding. Israel hasn't been able to force its neighbors to accept its treatment of the Palestinians.

Has Israel warned that it will use nukes if the Arab nations don't accept its treatment of Palestinians? Isn't it understood that it's a defensive weapon? Has Israel used WMD on civilians?

But maybe some nations have elected not to go to war with Israel?

Or maybe some nations have come to the realization that Israel is not going away, whether they wanted to accept that fact or not.

India hasn't coerced Pakistan to give up its claims to Kashmir.

Doesn't Pakistan have nukes too?

China hasn't succeeded in reclaiming Taiwan.

Isn't Taiwan protected by the US?

The argument is that Mr. Hussein is so reckless that he would be more successful. But what stops a nuclear power from carrying out a nuclear attack, or attempting nuclear blackmail, is not inborn self-restraint. It's the prospect of nuclear retaliation.

Have any nations used nukes as an offensive threat yet? Do we have a case study on what a wacko dictator with nukes does?

Is there a nuclear umbrella over the ME? Is Lebannon, Syria, Iran, etc. protected?

But they would wouldn't be the #1 targets, they are only countries that may be influenced. Israel would be a target.

Would one wacko tyrant think that maybe he could knock-out a country the size of New Jersey before it could retaliate...maybe. Would he think that the US must restrain itself and not attack an Arab country with nukes since it would begin WWIII? Maybe.

It certainly adds an additional element of chaos to the ME, that cannot be denied.

What about providing a nuke to terrorists to use in the US? Iraq can claim no knowledge of it afterwards. No reason to mention that in the article, eh?

I can't stand it, and I'm probably wasting my time.

I'm not convinced that we need to war with Iraq, I haven't decided yet. But idiots/manipulators like this guy (whichever he is) certainly won't sway my opinion.

 

Hey...quit putting words in my mouth. Where do you get off saying I was ridiculing the British? That is not what I was doing. Plus, I think you completely missed my point. My point was are we going to repeat the same mistakes which ended up costing everyone more in WWII all over again based on what we know now. Churchhill had evidence that Nazi Germany was involved in a deep proliferation of their military and we're trying to hide it before Germany started invading other countries. Those were different times and lessons should have been learned from those mistakes of not acting before it was too late. I'm not judging what decisions were made back then but I will use that to judge how superpowers respond now and in the future.

The only parallel I was making is that what seems like a large majority of the British government appears ready to not do anything about Iraq(based on the media reports of the rift between Blair and his government) even with intelligence indicating weapons proliferation and whatever else is going on over there. Therefore, they and we(if we followed)...if we chose to do nothing...might be allowing Iraq to get in a position where they could take the offensive. This is the argument...isn't it? The longer you put off Iraq...the more time they have to develop nuclear weapons and long range missile systems combined with a threat of collaborating with terrorists. Put these WoMD in the hands of a tyrant and who knows what will happen. Then, when you could have done something about it before, you now are in the unenviable position of not being able to do anything about it now or do so with much more risk and loss of life...at home and abroad. Then, you end up looking back at what you could have done to prevent this before and wish you had acted then based on the intelligence you had at the time. After WWII, the superpowers are not in a position to do nothing in the face of what Iraq is doing. The assumption is that when Iraq achieves a certain level of power...their not just going to sit back and worry about their own national security based on their past report card.
I don't think we're just going to sit back and hope it all works out in the future.

In my opinion, these should be lessons learned from WWII in that superpowers can no longer afford to take a "wait and see" approach and turn a blind eye. It cost millions of lives before and it could costs the same in the future. I would say if we do nothing now then we didn't learn from WWII. After WWII, national security became more about doing things now to prevent problems in the future whereas prior to WWII, the definition was more wait until we are attacked on our home soil or there is an imminent threat before we do anything about it. Now, we are saying the imminent threat may be 5 years away. Do we want to wait on that threat to become even greater and more real before doing anything about it? Has Iraq given us any reason to trust they will do the right thing in the future?

All this political maneuvering by Iraq with their lies and failure to live up to UN resolutions pretty much thumbing their noses at anything UN. They had a contract they signed and they broke the contract. All bets are off now. In these times we live in now, I don't think any country can do what Iraq is doing and not have consequences that are not just limited to UN sanctions. Iraq would never be in the position they are in if they weren't the aggressors in the first place.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/international/middleeast/04IRAQ.html

Again, it's too soon to judge whether too attack or not.

 

I think the situations are extremely different. In Bosnia we went in with the support of the NATO and most of our Allies. It wasn't a unilateral invasion. In addition regime change wasn't necessarily the goal there, but troops were sent in to halt the massacre of the civilians. Most countries in the region were supportive of troops going in. 80% of the troops stationed there are not U.S. troops.

Iraq would be going against most of the allies in the region, and most of the allies around the world. Iraq would be a first strike, Even Hitler prentended that the Czechs had fired first. For all of Hitler's invasions he tried to pretend that they were in retaliation.

The invasion of Iraq would be an invasion and an occupation.

The action in Bosnia, was to seperate to sides that were fighting. It's like breaking up a fight in a bar, and seperating the two parties. Iraq is far different.

I also wanted to throw my support to what Batman said about Iraq not already using it's chemical weapons. Hussein has had them, but hasn't used them against us. It seems as if containment is working. It worked in the Cold war, and our opponent was much more formidable. It didn't take an invasion.

 

Do you think we should stand by and let ANY country that wants to acquire nuclear weapons do so?

 

Not necessarily. It should be taken case by case, but there are other ways of denying countries nuclear weapons other than an invasion... Certainly not a unilateral invasion.

 

Other ways like...what? There is no Soviet Union to keep their proxys like Iraq and North Korea from developing nukes. Dependence on Cold War deterrence will fail even more horribly now than they did during that period. Other world actors are more than willing to spread the technology for short term gains in money or influence (see France/Israel or Germany/South Africa or China/Pakistan).

And in what case would you let a despot with Saddam's record obtain nukes?

To allow any country to develop nukes is utter folly that I pray we don't live to regret.

 

Well, Hussein has used chemical weapons, just not against us...yet.

The Cold War is not analogous to the present situation. MAD applied. Hussein could be considered far more dangerous, since he can deliver nukes through covert means (with terrorists), and possibly never get caught redhanded.

So, say a nuke goes off in an American city and he denies involvement. That's nothing like an ICBM launched from Russia. Many still believe that 9-11 was an Israeli conspiracy, do you think that the same folks would believe us if we said Hussein was behind the nuke? It would probably be viewed as another Israeli conspiracy.

 

Yup.

 

Saddam has chem weapons, and hasn't used them against us. Why is he considered such a risk to do that against us, if it weren't for fear of an attack?

Mad Max,

Yes I guess with regards to getting congress approval it wasn't done before. I don't really have an answer either. Maybe the President figured that since it wasn't an invasion or that it was done with NATO that treaties already existed that covered it.

Hayes Street,

As far as stopping other countries without using unilateral force I would try denying them materials they needed to create them.

If it was a matter of another country obtaining a nuclear or the U.S. striking first in a unilateral manner, I would let the country develop the nukes, and continue with a policy of containment.

Many countries currently have nukes, that I wished didn't. When China was getting nukes, there wasn't an invasion, and so far there hasn't been attacks from China against us with nukes.

I would also try and build the case around the world to shut that country out of development, and influence internal operations to remove someone like Hussein.

 

If what you say is true (most of the troops were from other countries, the countries in the region wanted intervention) then why was the US involved at all? The fact is that there was plenty of dissent about intervention in Bosnia from countries in the region, and major powers as well (see Russia). The fact is that France, Germany et al sat by for ten years and did nothing until the US led the intervention. That is what we do. We lead. Countries follow. Why? Because they'd rather ignore the problem unless they have someone to else blame if the **** hits the fan.

 

Perhaps it would be useful to point out that Hitler had scientists working on developing the first atomic bomb. Gee...I wonder why that was. Oh yeah...it was to aid in conquering Europe. Hitler routinely invaded European countries in order to gain control over their assets and resources. Just like Hussein has done to his neighbors on more than one occasion.

Are ya sure about that? Have we not nuked Iraq because we are afraid of a nuclear retaliation or because we have restraint? This theory may have validity when BOTH nations have nukes, but seems to fall apart when only one country in question has them.

So that makes it ok???? We should just sit back and be complicit in his use of these weapons? Whatever happened to your precious moral high ground...you can't have it both ways.

It has been shown time and time again that Truman's use of the bomb actually saved lives which would have been lost had the war continued.

Mr. Hussein IS crazy, and his WOMD program was nowhere near as advanced as it is now in 1991. You have to deal with the realities of TODAY...not 11 years ago.

Or a couple of missile silos with his finger on the trigger...while he suggests to his neighbors that they join Iraq.

Whew! It sure is good to know that Mr. Chapman has all the information. I had no idea that some jerky from the Tribune had high level security clearance to pour over the intelligence reprts. Oh...he doesn't???!!! Well that just makes him a presumptuous idiot with an obvious bias. Nothing of substance here.

 

That has empirically failed, even during the Cold War. See Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa etc etc. Why would you continue a policy that DOES NOT WORK?

That is folly. And WHY would you do that? You say 'even Hitler CLAIMED to be retaliating.' What kind of principle are you upholding if a fake claim is enough to satisfy you? (And it was Poland not Czechoslavakia)... And if it is then why doesn't the 'claim' that we are retaliating for Saddam's attack on Bush satisfy you? Why doesn't the 'claim' that this is retaliation for 9/11 satisfy your imperative that we not 'strike first?'

There is a difference between China and Iraq. China is hedged in by India on one side, by Russia on one side, and the Pacific on the other. There is no counterbalance to a nuclear Iraq in the middle east. Mao's main goal was ensuring the integrity of Chinese territory (or so michecon tells us). Saddam is expansionist. There are many more differences if you really want to get into it. You have picked a bad example, and an example from another period that is not relevant to the post-Cold War world.

Riiiiiight. As I've said, it is FACT that France helped Israel build a bomb for the cash. It is FACT that China helped Pakistan build the bomb for influence and as a thorn in India's side. It is a FACT that Germany helped South Africa with their program for influence. You are living in a dream world.

C-O-N-T-A-I-N-M-E-N-T F-A-I-L-S...

 

FrancisheBlade,

The US insisted that things would be different from this example once they entered Bosnia.

<A HREF="http://www.columbia.edu/itc/journalism/nelson/rohde/p-10131.html">A Cautionary Tale for US Before It Enters Bosnia</A>

By David Rohde
</i>
NOVA KASABA, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA --
STANDING BY: A Dutch soldier guards Muslim women from Srebrenica after the town fell to Bosnian Serb forces last July. Dutch peacekeeping troops in Bosnia are accused of abandoning their posts as Muslim civilians gathered around them for protection in both Srebrenica and Potocari. The debacle led to a massacre of Muslim men.
(NICK SHARP/REUTERS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caught between warring factions, the Dutch soldier and his fellow UN peacekeepers were eager to abandon Observation Post Kilo, a hilltop compound in Srebrenica, a town the UN declared as a "safe area."

The lightly armed Dutch force had endured three days of Serb shelling. The day before, angry Muslims defending the enclave had killed a Dutch peacekeeper when he abandoned a UN post to the Serbs.

As a Bosnian Serb officer warily walked up to his post in the late afternoon, Private Schellens and the other peacekeepers felt a sense of relief.

"Ready to go?" the Bosnian Serb officer asked.

"Yeah, we're ready," shouted the Dutch soldiers.

Two days later, Srebrenica fell, and 400 Dutch soldiers stood by as about 800 mostly elderly Muslim civilians were rounded up and later killed, according to witnesses.

The passivity of the Dutch peacekeepers and their UN commanders in this massacre shows that, after five years of trying new ways of peacekeeping in the post-cold-war era, the international community is still far from getting it right.

With American troops poised to enforce peace in Bosnia, the US insists its mission will be different...........</i>