What is being presented as a possibility now is that France was erroneously thrown in with the German position of war under no circumstances. France is now 'clarifying' it's 'original' position that it wants more time for the inpectors, but that war cannot be ruled out as an option. That, I believe, is what the French mean when they say they haven't changed their position. Some take it as being different from their joint statement with the Germans, so they say their position is softening.
If the idea of substantially increasing the number of inspectors and providing UN blue hats to accompany them was such a breakthrough, they could have rolled it out in the spring of 2002 to show their commitment to disarming Iraq and take the lead on the issue instead of being the counter to the US plan in 2003. Spring of 2002? And perhaps the US could have shown its commitment to disarmament by providing a plan in 1999?! What does that have to do with anything? They were clearly hoping the inspectors that the UN authorized in Res 1441 would succeed. They pretty much didn't. Now they are proposing a second phase to strengthen those inspections. The only difference between the US and French positions at this point are that the US feels the primary solution is war while the French see other this alternative as the best solution. I don't see how this shows that the French / Germans believed Iraq doesn't have WMD.
Bush wasn't in office in 1999 and was preoccupied in the fall of 2001. Bush was raising the issue of Iraq with Schroeder in May of 2002 and Schroeder failed to take the lead on the matter. Now things are at a crucial juncture and Chirac - Schroeder want to take the lead when they had time & opportunity to do so earlier. Did Res 1441 have any more strength than the past failed attempts to disarm Iraq in the 1990's? They failed, so the failure of Res 1441 should be of no surprise to anyone. Why didn't Germany - France push for a stronger Res 1441 (expanded inspection force & blue hats) in fall 2002 instead of rolling out the new & improved version in early spring 2003? I believe that Chirac & Schroeder know that Saddam has WMD, they are just obstinate for their own reasons and keep asking the US for proof, saying that Powell's presentation wasn't enough, etc and are feigning ignorance about what they know. Schroeder for the pacificst vote in Germany and Chirac because the French are not interested in following the lead of the US are amongst the possible reasons. I am curious to know the number of troops that Germany & France would commit to an UN blue hat force in Iraq. You keep taking my initial post the wrong way............I will be more careful with my phrasing in the future. My intention was to point out that Chirac & Schroeder don't want to acknowledge that Iraq has WMD (or other violations), but realize that there are things that are <i>wrong</i> in Iraq (the article mentioned disarmament). If you have a link for Chirac and/or Schroeder publicly agreeing with Bush, the Powell presentation etc.....please post it. Now to other business in this thread.......aren't you interested in discussing the 760 millimeter missile that was mentioned in the <b>Blix Report</b> and is outside the bounds of what Iraq is allowed? You disparaged the British report in this thread, so I thought you would be interested in discussing the Blix Report.
Major: Based on past history, I think that he will make the wrong choice. He has a long, long history of severely miscalculating his opposition, particularly western opposition. You seem to think that he will suddenly understand his true predicament correctly. I think that you are overestimating his ability to see the situation clearly. You are ignoring the pattern and placing faith in Saddam to do the right thing. Think again. You see, Saddam still thinks that A) we probably are not serious about invading, and B) that if we are foolish enough to invade, that he can bloody us enough in street fighting to send us packing. He thinks that he can actually win. These are both obviously huge miscalculations on his part, but what is obvious to the rest of the world has not always been so to him. Incidentally, this is also why he will not accept an exile scenario. He will not be dislodged from power peacefully, nor, I repeat, give up his WMD peacefully. He pins all future hopes of expanding his power on keeping and extending his WMD arsenal to include nuclear weapons.
Bush wasn't in office in 1999 and was preoccupied in the fall of 2001. Bush was raising the issue of Iraq with Schroeder in May of 2002 and Schroeder failed to take the lead on the matter. Now things are at a crucial juncture and Chirac - Schroeder want to take the lead when they had time & opportunity to do so earlier. We had the opportunity to take the last the last 10 years or so and didn't. Bush could have in the Summer of 2001, but chose not to also. I don't see the problem with Germany & France trying to avoid a UN war. Are you saying that since they didn't present alternatives in the past, they gave up their right to take any leadership role and should just accept what the US is doing as the only solution? Did Res 1441 have any more strength than the past failed attempts to disarm Iraq in the 1990's? They failed, so the failure of Res 1441 should be of no surprise to anyone. Why didn't Germany - France push for a stronger Res 1441 (expanded inspection force & blue hats) in fall 2002 instead of rolling out the new & improved version in early spring 2003? Res 1441's point was to give Saddam a "last chance" to comply, with the threat of military invasion being there (which wasn't the case in previous resolutions). That didn't mean France / Germany actually wanted to get stuck with a military invasion, and that was clear by the language the French got placed in the resolution. The inspection process as is now, if it worked, was a better solution than sending an army of UN troops in, so why not try this way first? I believe that Chirac & Schroeder know that Saddam has WMD, they are just obstinate for their own reasons and keep asking the US for proof, saying that Powell's presentation wasn't enough, etc and are feigning ignorance about what they know. I agree that they believe Saddam has or is developing WMD - I believe most country's leaders think that. I think the proof is to justify war - you don't just start a war because you know something. Unlike the US, they seem a little more concerned about world opinion of them. You keep taking my initial post the wrong way............I will be more careful with my phrasing in the future. My intention was to point out that Chirac & Schroeder don't want to acknowledge that Iraq has WMD (or other violations), but realize that there are things that are wrong in Iraq (the article mentioned disarmament). If you have a link for Chirac and/or Schroeder publicly agreeing with Bush, the Powell presentation etc.....please post it. I can't say I've seen anything where they say he does have WMD, but I also can't say I've seen anything where they say he doesn't have WMD. I don't think they want to take action based on the "we just know" argument. Now to other business in this thread.......aren't you interested in discussing the 760 millimeter missile that was mentioned in the Blix Report and is outside the bounds of what Iraq is allowed? You disparaged the British report in this thread, so I thought you would be interested in discussing the Blix Report. I don't have any issues with that. I know there are violations in the report - Iraq has violated any number of things, and I have no doubt he is trying to develop WMD. My comment on the UK thing is that it just provides fodder for anyone making the anti-war case and gives people something to yell and scream about when challenging our credibility.
Was it a magazine article, and was it from 12 years ago? It was a research document from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, in 2002, that uses information going back 12 years or so, right? The researcher (not a PhD yet) said that Powell's report is consistent with his knowledge of Iraq. That doesn't address why it would be presented as 'intelligence' by the British, though. I do wonder whether the info from this research was only used to develop a background, then additional 'real' intelligence was appended.
Was it a magazine article, and was it from 12 years ago? I dunno -- I was just going off of Rimrocker's post in the British Intel thread: <I>Britain Admits That Much of Its Report on Iraq Came From Magazines By SARAH LYALL, NYTimes LONDON, Feb. 7 — The British government admitted today that large sections of its most recent report on Iraq, praised by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as "a fine paper" in his speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, had been lifted from magazines and academic journals. </I> Actually reading the article, though, it appears those articles copied were 1997-2002. The 12 years thing was from a separate post in that thread: <I>Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. "The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. </I> It appears the 12-years-old portion and the magazine-article portion were two separate pieces. How accurate those articles are, I don't know.
Based on past history, I think that he will make the wrong choice. He has a long, long history of severely miscalculating his opposition, particularly western opposition. You seem to think that he will suddenly understand his true predicament correctly. I think that you are overestimating his ability to see the situation clearly. You are ignoring the pattern and placing faith in Saddam to do the right thing. Think again. While I agree that he miscalculated in 1991, he had good reason to believe his attack on Kuwait would stand. He had decent relations with the U.S., he specifically asked us about Kuwait and we said "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" and that we had "no special defense or security commitments in Kuwait." Basically, he approached us about it and we didn't try to dissuade him from attacking - in fact, we basically gave him a green light. Outside of that, he hasn't really made any major miscalculations. And even in the Gulf War, he managed to stay in control. He's managed to stay in power for 30+ years, so he's doing something right. He seems like a fringe lunatic to us, but I think he very well knows what he's doing. His pattern is that he can be deterred if he's truly convinced he'll lose power -- his former military intelligence head has said he was deterred from using WMD in the Gulf War for that exact reason. You see, Saddam still thinks that A) we probably are not serious about invading, and B) that if we are foolish enough to invade, that he can bloody us enough in street fighting to send us packing. He thinks that he can actually win. I agree with the first part, but not the latter. I don't think there's any doubt in his mind that he would eventually lose, although he might think he can make it very bloody. I do think he's not convinced we'll invade. That's why a resolution like this France/Germany proposal would need to have teeth - something Res 1441 was very much lacking in. It needs to have set dates, and a commitment to war backed by the U.N. if any terms are violated. Incidentally, this is also why he will not accept an exile scenario. He will not be dislodged from power peacefully, nor, I repeat, give up his WMD peacefully. He pins all future hopes of expanding his power on keeping and extending his WMD arsenal to include nuclear weapons. I agree that he won't accept exile - it's a pointless alternative to him because his #1 concern is power. I think he'd trade WMD for power though. If this proposal gains momentum, we have to decide then if the additional "regime change" goal is worth war.
Major, After hearing Al-Marashi in an interview, I think the writer of this article had a ulterior motives.
Major, if Saddam is as rational and savvy as you suggest, why did he order the assassination of a former U.S. President? What did he expect the U.S. reaction to be?
I only read the article that Major also read here. It that seemed to imply that the information was very dated. Were all of the articles written the same way?
The man has been in power in an incredibly unstable area for over 30 years, has gone to war with basically the entire industrialized world and maintained power, and we asssume that he's irrational and politically naive? I would suggest that he knows at least as much about the situation and it's implications as any computer bound civilian or grunt private. It's an interesting phenomenen thoughm the fact that we continue to demonize potential enemies in the age of Information...It's been done throughout history; but you would think it would have ended with the advent of television, and Beware The Yellow Peril or Better Dead Than Red might have been the swan song...but no, it continues to this day, and it's still so ridiculous that many of us assume that we have a better handle on Iraq's situation than the man in charge of the country himself. Is he a despot? Yes...there are countless numbers in the world..Has he shown a tendency to commit political/real suicide? Nope...Has he shown an inability to distinguish the difference between conventional war and the use of WMD, even when his administration was on the verge of being overthrown? No...As Major has stated, exactly the opposite. Power is his game, his life,and his livliehood, and he knows it better than you or I, we can assume. This need to paint every adversary with the Raving Fuhrer brush is so old I'm amazed people still buy into it. Re: Assassination attempt & link with reason or savvy, trivia question: Which American President authorized assassination attempts against Fidel Castro at the height of the Cold War, which could easily have lead to WWIII? Was said President, and/or his advisors insane, or merely hopelessly naive? Sidenote on history and propoganda smear campaigns... Napoleon was a threat to the rest of Europe because he lead a nominally democratic nation at a time when all of his neighbours were monrchies, and therefore represented a threat to said powers that be. So they repeatedly sought to invade France and overthrow the popular government was, from those monarch's point of view, understandable. That they did so repeatedly, almost always as the agressor, and were the only ones to break peace treaties, while simultaneously portraying Napoleon as a war monger is interesting. The fact that the common man in those neighbouring nations bought it, when in fact he better represented their interests more than thier regal leaders is a little baffling, but given their lack of access to information, understandable. But the fact that we still, by and large, have maintained that war monger image of Napoleon despite the facts that A) We have become democratic ourselves, and no longer need to see that way of thinking as dangerous to peace, and B) Have access to all the information we need, is baffling. For all his faults, and even allowing for the fact that he wasn't as democratic as he presented himself to be, Napoleon was far and away more politically representative of the kind of government we now accept as the right way than any of the enemies he fought, and the same enemies who painted the picture of him many of us still accept as real.
Invading Iran in 1980: upwards of a million casualties on both sides, drove his country into such dire economic straits that he was forced (?) to invade Kuwait to get enough funds for debt repayment incurred during that war. No clear winner of Iran-Iraq war, with nothing to show for 8 years of brutal and costly combat. Miscalculation - Yes. Did not believe that the Israelis would destroy the Osirak nuclear reactor. They did. Miscalculation - Yes. Did not believe that the US/West would fight for Kuwait. Wrong messages sent by us, probably, but still a major booboo on his part; he simply failed to realize that he was hitting a vital nerve by invading Kuwait, and that we would have to respond. Believed that he could defeat the US in battle in 1991. Miscalculation - You betcha. Believed that US would lose its stomach for sanctions if he diverted funds made available through oil-for-food deals. Result: innocent Iraqis die, sanctions still in place. Miscalculation - Yes. There's a definite pattern here. He is usually quite good at reading the Arab world's reactions to events, but he does not understand the West at all, and has miscalculated in virtually every engagement he has had with us. Do not think that this time will be any different. Perhaps. But how do you convince this man that he is really going to lose power? He will simply laugh at any efforts to strengthen inspections, and rightly regard them as a sign of weakness. Again, you ascribe to Saddam a clear-sightedness that he does not possess. He does not understand US strategic thinking; he believes that he can draw us into Baghdad and inflict heavy enough casualties in street fighting that we will leave. He actually does think that he can win in this way. He understands that he cannot defeat us in the open desert, but he doesn't understand that we are not going to fight on his terms. We will be at war shortly precisely because he thinks he can actually win. If he knew that he couldn't win, and gave in to all of our (or even the UN's) demands, then none of this would be happening. He doesn't realize his true predicament. Why should he have to if he can win the war? These issues are tied together, ya know. If Saddam were a truly rational man with clear and honest perceptions of the situation, then he would be handing over his WMD to the UN right now. He is not. This proposal will sputter and die in the water because it necessitates a rational leader with clear and honest perceptions on the Iraqi side. There isn't one, at least not at the top. And regime change is the main goal of the war. The weapons themselves are only a symptom of the disease. Regime change is the cure. The only cure, BTW. Remove all of his weapons tomorrow, but leave him and the Baathists in power, and they will simply restart the fermenters again as soon as the inspectors shut the door. Only replacing the leadership can prevent that from happening.
To make this proposed scenario work........wouldn't the US & Britian have to keep forces of +100K deployed in adjoining countries? If Saddam agrees to this and the US & Britian start drawing down their forces to normal levels..........the presure for Saddam to honor the deal will be lessened. Yeah......I know that there is the honor system and Saddam will keep his word. How long of a major deployment of US & British forces would be required? What is Iraqi feedback on the French - German plan?
I cannot see Saddam letting the blue hats in, and I'd be surprised if the French and Germans think he would, which would mean that they are prepared to pressure Saddam more and let him fail. JMO.
What I think we are seeing here is one of the first evidences of how long time allies are beginning to resist the bullying policies of the US. This may have happened sooner or later. However, the arrogance of this Administration having Rumsfeld run around Europe calling Gemany and France a Libya is stupid and sped up the process. It is geting clearer that the issue is not disarming or containing Iraq, but having a war to conquer the country. Between their double talk on N. Korea and their attempt to resist real inspections, spy plan overflights, UN troops or anything short of war, the Administration is being unmasked daily as being only interested in taking over Iraq and war. It is becoming clearer that weapons of mass destruction are not the real issue. To the true war backers or Bush supporters about 50% in the US and a relatively small minority world wide this is not obvious. To everyone else it is. It may seem to the true believers that the other 50% in the US and the strong majority in the rest of the world don't matter as they will get their war anyway. They probably will get their war, but I predict that this will be the beginning of the end for this war first US policy. Many sources are predicting thousands of US deaths. Bush senior, James Baker, Powell, Schwartkopf, Rumsfeld and other have in the past predicted Afgan or Balkan type chaos in Iraq after such a war. Now we know some of these guys have changed their story in the last year or so, but they have never explained why. The CIA has predicted that this war will lead to more terrorism against Americans. The polls showed that 70% of Americans expect the war to lead to this. Having started a war with most of the world and half of America against it, It will be hard, if there are any significant number of American casualties, to portray the war as a great victory for America and the war on terrorism. It will be hard to spin it as a meaningful victory forever with the internet, and the rest of the free world press becoming more accessible to Americans. Another danger to their spin is with such networks as Al Jazeera, Americans might even eventually see the tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of melted disfigured Iraqi civilian bodies that will be lying around after our attack. It's a wierd but I think history books will lump this current American hubris in along with the irrational exuberance of the internet bubble.
If this articl from the Guardian is correct France and Germany have the support of Russia and China in resisting Bush's war. Russia and China, too?
