What to do about Iraq?

[cerulean]

It almost slipped my mind, but it is now twelve years since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990. (How time flies.)

There are a lot of ideas about what might be done, should be done, will be done, by the US in respect to Iraq.

A few recent articles:

http://library.northernlight.com/EC2...=1006&rq=0#doc
Story Filed: Friday, August 02, 2002 12:44 PM EDT
U.S. Answers Iraq on Inspections

http://msnbc.com/news/788858.asp?0dm=C11QN
Iraq invites arms inspector for talks

(Iraq might be hinting it is willing to have inspections.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz080202.asp
Supersize It: Do we have enough troops to go into Iraq?
(This article argues that the US may not have enough troops, but does not want to admit it, because to do so would raise the specter of a draft.)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143
BLAIR 'DEEPLY CONCERNED' OVER IRAQ ATTACK PLAN
(Note: The Mirror is a tabloid, but it is reporting a story that has also appeared elsewhere - King Abdullah says Blair confided in him about misgivings regarding the invasion of Iraq. Obviously Abdullah is not a good confidante, if this is true.)

http://msnbc.com/news/788031.asp?0bl=-0
U.S. will have to go it alone vs. Iraq

http://www.nationalpost.com/commenta...F-BF70CBCF98B0
Pencil in Iraq for this August
Mark Steyn again, with his usual humorous commentary style. Quote:

But if a more or less civilized regime were to take over in Baghdad, it would have a tremendously destabilizing effect. By "civilized," I'm thinking no higher than a General Musharraf type, someone who's not genocidal and has greater ambitions for the treasury than the anthrax program. Were a local Musher to surface, he'd quickly be pumping an extra couple million gallons of oil a day and thus adding to the woes of the House of Saud, for whom low gas prices means rethinking the gold-plated toilet in your pad on the Riviera. The Saudis have figured that out, which is why they want the old Saddamite to stay in power indefinitely.

As mentioned elsewhere, Iraq is working on a nuclear bomb:
http://msnbc.com/news/786933.asp
Experts see growing threat from Iraq

And presuming that Saddam is toppled, what happens next?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/in...st/02IRAQ.html
Experts Put Large Price Tag on Rebuilding of Iraq

[ibrodsky]

Supposedly the only debate in the Bush administration is whether to follow the Pentagon's advice and use a large ground force with over 200,000 troops, or a White House team's advice of a smaller force (perhaps 75,000) relying more heavily on technology. This could include a relatively small tank force backed by massive air power that would "sprint" to Baghdad.

I think the small, agile, high tech force is the way to go. If for no other reason than we must develop and perfect this type of capability. After all, the threat going forward is terror-sponsoring states, not big conventional armies.

I also think the US needs to act soon. The message sent to the world as things stand is that we went after Osama bin Laden, who is probably dead now, reasoanbly fast. But we let a host of terrorist groups continue to operate. We need to take out Saddam soon to let the terrorist states know they better change their ways.

As Benjamin Netanyahu said, the terrorist groups are not suspended in mid-air. They are backed by states and that is the ultimate source of their power.

[Mohoc]

What is next after Iraq? Iran? or maybe Saudi Arabia? (ohh sorry the Saudis are our allies....)

At least going after Sadam could solve the oil import problems that the US faces. Just anex Iraq and all the oil produced doesn't have to be imported any more

[cerulean]

During the Gulf War, who can forget how Israelis had to go into sealed rooms and put on gas masks when there were incoming Scud attacks, because of the fear that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons. (As it turned out, only a few people died from the Scud missiles.)

The situation for Israel this time around could well be worse, according to this article.

Israel intelligence projects Iraqi missile strike if Saddam is cornered

http://216.26.163.62/2002/me_israel_08_04.html

SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Sunday, August 4, 2002

JERUSALEM — Israel's military has projected that Iraq could launch nonconventional missiles strikes should President Saddam Hussein feel his regime is endangered by the United States.

The threat of an Iraqi attack has led to a revision of Israeli combat doctrine, the sources said. They said Israel has upgraded its early-warning alert of any Iraqi attack despite U.S. pledges to supply such a warning.

In all, the sources said, Israel cannot expect advance warning of more than eight hours of any U.S. attack on Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported. They said this will demand increase satellite reconnaissance and intelligence operations to determine Iraqi military movements. . . .

=========

According to the article, Iraq might use either chemical or biological weapons as the missile payload. It might also use Palestinians to help launch nonconventional attacks against Israel.

This threat is not a reason to not attack Iraq--after all, Saddam's capabilities are probably going to increase and the threat he poses will become even greater. But this threat does indicate that any US action should be decisive, to help prevent him from having the chance to launch any such attacks.

[cerulean]

Fortunately, the US government now appears to be more aware of the nature of the Saudis:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1027506446105

Aug. 4, 2002
Bush calls for int'l help in fighting terror after new Israel bombing; Sen. Lieberman says Saudis aiding Hamas

[cerulean]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/...769845,00.html
Oil price formula calls for critical maths if Saddam is taken out of the equation

Thomas Friedman
Tuesday August 6, 2002
The Guardian
=======

This article points out possible consequences of a war with Iraq -- such as Saddam deciding to destroy Kuwait's or Saudi Arabia's oil fields. That could lead to $60/barrel oil (currently it's in the range of $20/barrel). Non-Opec countries would take advantage of the situation, to be sure.

On the other hand, a decisive victory could lead to $6/barrel oil. Such low-priced oil will hamper Arab aristocrats' support of terrorism; weaken OPEC; and bring revolutions in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela.

[Mediocrates]

I'm not an oil economist but it's unclear to me where these numbers come from. While/When/If Iraq is invaded it is plausible that other OPEC and non OPEC countries step up production. For example we are already applying pressure to Venezuela. We are developing production in Angola and Namibia and taking steps to ramp up production in the FSU.

The Arab states will see this as an opportunity to gouge the world on prices but the quid pro quo is our ability to shut down the entire Saudi Military interms of maintenance and spare parts. Clearly they were not going to provide forward bases for us from which to invade anyway so they serve no stratetgic purpose. OTOH our new 'friends' to the north in the '-stans' are almost as good.

I also dispute how or if this could lead to $6/bbl. Saddam, if threatened will destroy his own capacity to create a panic so it's not likely that oil could fall that low.

[Moon]

Originally posted by cerulean
During the Gulf War, who can forget how Israelis had to go into sealed rooms and put on gas masks when there were incoming Scud attacks, because of the fear that Saddam Hussein would use chemical weapons. (As it turned out, only a few people died from the Scud missiles.)

(...)

According to the article, Iraq might use either chemical or biological weapons as the missile payload. It might also use Palestinians to help launch nonconventional attacks against Israel.

Twelve years... phew... I was six, but I still remember some things like the smell of the gas masks' rubber, the sound it made when we breath in it, the windows filled with sticky tape, food radio TV other stuff and all the family in one room, the heart-stopping sound of the alarm,... heavy enviroment and heavy times. We still have our old gas masks up in the closet. You know what was my thought as a kid? I knew there was a war between Iraq and Kuwait and I knew Iraq's missiles were hitting Israel, so I thought Israel was between the two countries... I was allways bad at geography I guess.

But since you mention the Palestinians... Some months ago I was viewing some old video tapes and some of them were recordings from the Israeli news broadcasts during the war. I saw an illarious altough not surprising report. I don't remeber the order of events, but the following stuff happened:

- Palestinians celebrated Iraq's strikes against Israel and believed Israel would be destroyed

- A Scud landed in the West Bank

- Israel distributes gas masks through the West Bank

Those who know French, know that the words "bon" and "con" are one letter away from becoming the same word.

[cerulean]

Moon, thanks for recounting your personal experience. Your six-year-old understanding of geography makes a lot more sense than Saddam's real reason for sending Scuds to Israel.

=========
Not only is the Bush leadership team apparently divided over Iraq, but he might also lack support from his own Republican Party:

Dick Armey Warns on Iraq Attack
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:06 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/nati...rmey-Iraq.html

******
And today:
Muted Bush Response to Armey Questions on Iraq
By REUTERS
Filed at 1:22 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/polit...-iraq-usa.html

Armey says refusal to allow weapons inspectors in is not a good enough reason to attack. Armey is among the most conservative Republican members so his approval of an Iraqi invasion is likely necessary from a practical standpoint.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
Not only is the Bush leadership team apparently divided over Iraq, but he might also lack support from his own Republican Party

It now looks like it's 50-50 at best.

But the world's refusal to support the U.S. has much greater implications than just the Iraqi situation.

It shows that the U.S. has very few real allies that can be counted on. And while the Iraqi situation is different from the rest of the war on terrorism, I doubt that the U.S. will find many allies on that front either.

I hope that the Bush administration makes the necessary conclusions from the position of our fair-weather friends. They have no interest in fighting evil nor making any real contributions to world peace. Rather, they are simply ungrateful economic opponents.

I personally would like to see the U.S. pull out of NATO and the UN, then pull out our forces from Europe and Asia. Let's deal with our own interests first without dedicating resources to safeguard our trade opponents. We have no need nor reason to consult dozens of other countries about what the U.S. sees as being in its best interest -- and what that is exactly should be put to congress to decide.

[ibrodsky]

I hope I am not being too optimistic, but I wonder if all of the pronouncements against an Iraq attack are genuine or just part of a smokescreen.

Go to GlobalSecurity.com, they have satellite images that clearly show feverish construction activity in one of the gulf states; apparently the US has already replaced facilities in Saudi Arabia.

Israel is deploying its Arrow anti--missile defense system. Why now?

Saddam Hussein seems to be preparing his people for a near-term assault. Presumably, he has some hard information.

Debkafile has reported for some time of secret US preparations.

Is it possible that Pres. Bush still has no idea of which plan to use? Is it possible he hasn't yet decided to use military power? I seriously doubt it!

It is almost certain that there is suspicion Saddam was involved in the WTC attack. Maybe even proof. If a regime change is planned, there would be no benefit to revealing when and how we will strike. It makes far better sense to act and then disclose the evidence.

Tony Blair seems onboard. Remember, most of the fighting during the Gulf War was done by the US and Britain.

Even if Iraq is not terribly surprised by an attack whenever it takes place, there is value in showing that the current administration has no interest in tipping off enemies on when and how they will be dealt with. Let them all sweat...

[ibrodsky]

Bush's words, from AP:

"And if I did, I wouldn't tell you or the enemy," Bush told The Associated Press during a brief interview at his ranch in Crawford, Tex. Pressed on whether he would decide this year, he said, "Not necessarily."

Bush said he did not object to congressional committees holding hearings on how to carry out the administration's goal of achieving regime change in Iraq.

The press seems to be concluding that it might not happen at all -- that support is crumbling.

But the President's words are quite consistent with efforts to confuse the enemy. "I wouldn't tell you or the enemy" means anything he says publicly on the subject is probably meant to mislead.

[L@mplighterM]

I suppose history repeats itself sometimes. The current Iraq situation is somewhat similar to the years leading up to the outbreak of WW II.

It appears that Saddam is acquiring weapons adding them to his arsenal based on everything that I have ever read. There’s great reluctance to launch an attack against him by the world community many considering him impotent.

[L@mplighterM]

Saddam issued a statement indicating that the next war will be fought urban style. He indicated that there wont be a replay of the conflict in 1991.

It appears that he’s adopting the Palestinians stance of fighting in heavily populated areas.

It seems highly unlikely to me that NATO led by the US would even consider entering into a conflict on those terms. There’s no way that I can foresee the US carpet-bombing an area within a city and if they were to do so I can imagine the flak they would receive from the world community.

Furthermore it’s my understanding that the US will be bound by international law next year and killing civilians could/would be considered a war crime.

Article:

Planlegger urban krig mot USA

Iraks president Saddam Hussein skal ha gitt regionale embetsmenn beskjed om å forberede seg på urban krigføring mot USA.


http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ur...ticleID=378822

[Kent W]

The question of an attack is a difficult one, although it might correctly be considered necessary at some later date it has tremendous risks to it whenever it occurs. As a European I have to note the fact that the overwhelming majority is against it. For now and possibly also for later. That's not news. However, most likely it depends on what developments there will be with inspections and whether the case can be made that Saddam Hussein in fact endangers the region in a horrific, clear way. The European view can still change very quickly if that happens, but that case has not been made yet for most Europeans and supposedly not for Americans either. We should stress that there are no final words on the coalition, how it will turn out if it finds itself in combat with Iraq so we shouldn't rush to judgment. The rift is bad in and of itself. Most people believe that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons but not nuclear, so with that in mind a theory of containment seems to be the favored course in the European stand.

The minute some indications arise that Iraq has nuclear capability, presumably required from Soviet Republics, I believe the whole thing will go berserk. That's a gloomy scenario to say the least, especially since there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is more than capable of using it against Israel if he gets the chance. The more I think of this the more scary it becomes.

I have been following this thing with Iraq with great interest, not as I have studied Israel for fifteen years but decently so.

Even on this Iraqi business we have to understand that Israel is involved. How will Israel react this time if Iraq attacks with missiles?