[Harlen Maguire]

Iraq. Very long. Not a rant, but a serious deconstruction of the arguments for war.

Argument 1: Saddam poses a threat to the US and its allies.
Rebuttal:
For Iraq to be a threat, it needs both the capability to launch an attack, and the will to launch one. There’s no doubt that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and no doubt that it does not have nuclear weapons. So does it have the capability? Well, yes, of course, an Iraqi attack could cause thousands of deaths. As could a North Korean attack, or an Iranian attack, or a Libyan attack, or a Syrian attack, or a terrorist attack.
But does it have the will? No. Absolutely, indisputably not. Saddam knows that an Iraqi chemical or biological attack on the US or a US ally, or indeed any country that can fight back or has powerful friends, *will* result in the end of his regime. The price that Saddam will pay for an attack will be the end of his rule. And the only way in which this price won’t be overwhelming is if the end of his rule can’t be avoided – i.e., an attack on him. Don’t count out Iraqi chemical or biological attacks on the West when troops close in on Baghdad.
But how about a covert attack by Saddam? Giving some agents suitcases full of anthrax? For such an attack to be viable according to the logic above, Saddam would have to be sure that no-one could prove that the attack originated from Iraq. But then, what would he have to gain from an attack that couldn’t be traced back to him? In any case, there is always a *small* chance that he would be found out – and with nothing to gain, and his regime to lose, a covert attack would never, ever be in his interest.
Saddam poses no threat to the United States or its allies.

Argument 2: Saddam might give weapons to terrorists, particularly al-Qaeda.
Reubuttal:
Osama bin Laden and his minions hate Saddam Hussein. One of the main aims of pan-Islamic terrorist organisation is to establish a Caliphate – a vast Islamic empire, rules according to Islamic laws.
Saddam is a secular ruler; although he pays lip service to Islam, and builds mosques and has verses from the Koran written in his own blood, this is nothing more than a cynical way to appease potential Islamic opposition within Iraq. Osama hates Saddam for being a secular ruler, he calls him an infidel.
Take a look at al-Qaeda’s main aims; the expulsion of non-Muslims from Arabia; the destruction of Israel; the foundation of a Caliphate to unite the Islamic world under fundamentalist laws. A secondary aim is to attack the West, and the US in particular. (September 11th can be seen in terms of these primary aims; an attempt to frighten the US into withdrawing troops from Arabia, and to provoke the US into violent retribution that would unite Muslims against the US). Saddam’s aims? To preserve and strengthen his rule; and, if possible, to extend his rule (but this latter aim isn’t going to happen, since he *will* be attacked if he invades Kuwait again, or Saudi Arabia, or any other neighbour). The aims of al-Qaeda and Saddam are in direct conflict. al-Qaeda wants Islamic rule across the Muslim world; Saddam’s rule is secular. Saddam knows that if he gives al-Qaeda weapons, those weapons may eventually be used against him. Saddam only cares about the US if it interferes with him.
Saddam has nothing to gain from giving weapons to terrorists; he has much to lose. If he’s caught doing it, then he will be attacked. And that’s a chance that is far too risky for him to take.

Argument 3: Saddam might acquire nuclear weapons in the future.
Rebuttal:
Well, yes, he might. If left to his own devices. And nukes would make him much more dangerous, even if he wouldn’t use them. But if there are hundreds of inspectors in Iraq, then he’s not going to be producing nukes. Inspectors can prevent him from acquiring new weapons. If he suddenly throws all inspectors out and there’s evidence to suggest he’s trying to build nukes (which would take him several years, btw), and refuses to let them back in even under threat of force, then maybe there’s grounds for an attack. But he’s not done that since he let the inspectors back in.
Another argument goes that Saddam might give nuclear weapons to terrorists. This argument is like argument number 2, but with an addition: a nuclear attack would be too awful to bother worrying about Saddam’s cost-benefit reasoning. But since he can’t develop any nukes at present, we needn’t worry about this unless he throws the inspectors out. *Then* there would be some serious grounds for an attack.

Argument 4: Saddam is insane and therefore you cannot apply logic to him.
Rebuttal:
Arguments for Saddam’s supposed insanity rely on three facts; he started the Iran-Iraq war; he started the Gulf War; he has committed wanton attacks on his own people.
In answer to the third fact: yes, he has, but then so did Stalin, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Pinochet, Batista and many others; and some of those (Pinochet, Batista) were backed strongly by the US. Repression indicates cruelty, not madness.
In answer to the first: Saddam felt threatened by the Islamic revolution that had just swept fundamentalists to power in Iran, and there had been much verbal abuse of him from Iranian Supreme Ayatollah Khomeini. Iran was in a position of weakness, and Saddam knew that the US and allies would not come to Iran’s aid. This was a cunning, opportunistic war that went wrong because Saddam underestimated Iran’s ability to mount a serious defence.
In answer to the second: there’s no doubt that Saddam made a catastrophic error of judgement when invading Kuwait. But then, so did the US in Vietnam. Actually, James Baker had sent signals that the US would not fight against Iraq if it did invade. Saddam had reason to believe that he would be unopposed. And he had much to gain from a successful war; Kuwait had been cheating on its OPEC oil quotas, hurting Iraq’s economy.
Saddam is not mad. There is no evidence to suggest that he is. And much to suggest that he isn’t. The way he rose to power, and consolidated power, is not the story of a madman, but a cunning, brutal, ruthless, intelligent tyrant.

Argument 5: Failing to follow through on UN Resolution 1441 will damage the United Nations.
Rebuttal:
Take a look at 1441: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm
And take a look at the relevant section on an attack:
“The Security Council…13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”.
1441 does not authorise war, or an attack (except in reference to resolutions such as 660, which order Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait). It *recalls* that the Council has warned Iraq. It DOES NOT provide any new authorisation. It is vague. It is a flawed resolution.
And in any case, an attack on Iraq without explicit Security Council authorisation will damage the UN far more than not attacking; it would be a violation of the UN charter.

Argument 6: Inspections aren’t working.
Rebuttal:
Define ‘working’. Saddam can’t produce weapons while inspectors are around. In fact, weapons are being destroyed. Not as quickly as would be ideal, certainly, and there are many more to be found, but progress is being made. As Blix said, give the inspectors more resources, and inspections can work even better. Inspections aren’t working perfectly, but they’re still working.
And if ‘playing games with the UN’ constitutes grounds for an attack, then the US should have been attacked back in the Korean war era, when it played games with the UN charter to get its way.

Argument 7: A post-Saddam Iraq would make for a more stable Middle East.
Rebuttal:
This assumes that Saddam destabilises the region. All it takes is for the West to make it clear that any attack by Saddam on a neighbour will mean that he is attacked, and any threat to stability from Saddam is gone. Yes, Saddam attacked Kuwait and Iran – but he wouldn’t do so now.

Argument 8: Replacing Saddam by a democratically elected leader would spark a wave of democracy in the Middle East.
Rebuttal:
No, it wouldn’t. There is no logic behind this argument at all. And even if a war against Saddam did spark revolutions, they’d just as likely lead to a radical Islamic dictator than a democracy. And would multiple revolutions across the Middle East help stability?

Argument 9: The humanitarian argument.
Rebuttal:
Actually, this argument is the only one that makes any sense. Saddam *is* a brutal tyrant, he *has* murdered and gassed his own people. And Iraqis would be better off without him.
So, only one good argument for an attack. I’m not even going to get into the many reasons against an attack; killing Iraqis (and coalition soldiers), massive cost of war and rebuilding Iraq (we’re talking in the hundreds-of-billions range here), spawning new terrorists, defying the UN, screwing up when the reconstruction is abandoned by Bush, giving an incentive for other nations to develop nukes (since that’s the only way they definitely won’t get attacked by the US).
Although I should add that I’m not opposed to an attack on Iraq in principle; if the inspectors are thrown out and not let back in, and Saddam starts developing nukes, and a global coalition of all the major powers can be formed, and Saddam starts rattling his sabres towards his neighbours (like North Korea’s doing) then it’s a different story. Then there *might* be grounds for an attack. But not now.

----------------------------------------

Well kiddies, I hope we've all learned something from that... now run along and play... oOo:

[SoLiDUS]

I agree. What else is there to be said...

Pro-war people, start your bitching! biggrin:

would be interesting to include all the valid points for the war also, but that would be too much work i suppose

[A HUNGRY FATMAN]

what valid points are you talking about there are no valid moraly right valid reasons exept one that he is a tyrant who kills who kills his own people

[Low spark]

Good post. Unfortantly you pissing into the wind her. The people here seemed to have been swayed by the Cheney/Bush propaganda machine.
I read the other day in the either the Wall Street Journal or The New York Times, that the Dimplocy was a charade set up by Cheney so we could buy time to get our troops in place, Dimplocy was never met to work.

[Old Reliable]

Of course diplomacy wasn't meant to work, the US did jack shit to try and convince the countries to agree with us.

[pest]

Oh hey, look! Another war thread! And a long, almost certainly one sided article to validate one sides views. I start reading it immediately...... oOo:


Make it stop, please make it stop...... cry: