On the war

[andrewducker]

I was challenged a short while ago to find a coherent explanation for the war in Iraq. Someone else on my friends list then mentioned it today and this came out (repeated here so that other people can contradict me):

I absolutely agree that the way it was handled was a disgrace, there was no valid reason given for immediate war and we've been lied to a lot.

The only reason I can think of for the war (and how it came about) is:
1) The US believes that terrorism is being caused by both its troops propping up the Saudi regime (Osama's reason for his terrorist stance).
2) The US also believes that Saddam is sponsoring terrorists and Palestinian suicide bombers (he was definitely doing the second, he may have been doing the first but I ahven't seen any real evidence of it).
3) The US also believes that other countries (Syria, Iran) are covertly sponsoring terrorists.
4) Removing Saddam allows them to remove their Saudi troops. It also sends a message to Syria and Iran that they will kick ass if they suspect terrorists are being harboured.
5) You cannot fight a summer war in Iraq.
6) Therefore they have to invade Iraq right now or wait a year.
7)If they wait a year nobody will believe there are WMD's because ans Blix will have have been searching for a year without finding anything.
8) Any excuse will do, because once they topple Saddam they can unveil torture chambers to show how it was worth the loss of life on both sides to get rid of Darth Hussein.

I'm sure I've missed something, and I'd appreciate critique, but this is the only explanation that adds up for me. The oil one doesn't, to be honest, because the money they'll make out of that is far less than the cost of the military operation. Of course, the people paying for the war aren't the same as the people making money from the Oil, but I don't think that they were stupid enough to think they could just walk off with the oil without basically saying "Ok, we are an Empire." which they don't seem to be willing to do at the moment.

Comments

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

A coherant justification that I heard in several places, and have some sympathy with is as follows.

Saddam had designs on a Gulf superstate, specificaly he wanted to control all the oil supplies in the Gulf. Once he had this control (somewhere in the region of 20-30 percent of the worlds supply) he could hold he west to ransom by threatening to destroy or restrict the supply. He would use this influence to promote himself onto the world stage and become a major player. We would have to treat him with respect and he could do whatever the hell he wanted in his own territory, without even the threat of sacntions, see China for details.

This was his plan when he invaded Kuwait (and had a good look at Saudi), but he was kicked out again by the US. He then started desperately trying to get WMD as that was the only possible way he could stand up to the US millitarily. Also, if he could get WMD he could threaten the oil supply without even needing to invade and conquer. In his mind, once he had that control the west wouldnt be in a position to intervene, so he could repeat the invasions successfully.

So in short, the war wasnt necesarily about the west getting control of the oil, as it was stopping Saddam doing the same. People can bleat about how wrong it is to go to war for oil and how wrong it is that we are dependant on it, but the raw fact is that right now the western worlds economies are heavily based on oil and a severe restriction of the supply would lead to widespread and catestrophic recession. In the 70's a 3 percent drop in supply caused the oil crisis, Saddam was looking to control 22 percent. It would be a much easier world if we wernt reliant on oil (the middle east problems would drop to the same level of significance as the many other regional conflicts, just minus all the money) but that isnt something that can be done ovenight, if at all. Faced with a direct threat to the economic wellbeing of their countries, any government would be correct to take action to defend itself. The fact that an attack is economic doesnt make it any less serious than a physical one, and the prime purpose of most governments is the defence of thier people.

How much weight the above argument has I don;t know. for example for all we are dependant on oil, we are nowhere near as dependant as we were in the 70's, so the threat isnt as extreme as it was for the oil crisis. But then the size of potential drop is higher too. There could also have been many other reasons, including the wilder theories of Geroge wanting some whup ass.

I think this is a serious threat though and it was right for action to be taken about it. I never saw Al Quaeda or terrorism as having anything to do with this. Osama fought against Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war and htes him as an unbeleiver almost as much as he does the US. Saddam had nothing to with 9/11. Neither was it anything to do with Israel/Palestine, Saddam only cared about that issue in as much as it allowe dhim to inflame Arab opinion. Both of the above where just wheeled out as easy reaonsn the public could latch onto.

[andrewducker]

The problem with your theory is that Saddam wasn't capable of invading neighbouring countries with the US sitting on his borders and didn't have any WMDs.

He had a go at taking over neighbouring countries and failed, 10 years later he didn't have a hope of doing it again.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Ahh, but thats getting into a different argument. the above hypothesis works if you assume he had, or was close to getting WMD. They would allow him to stand up to the US millitary and neutralise the fact that they are camped out on his borders. He could do this by threatening to use WMD against US troops, US cities (if he could sort out a delivery mechanism, which is no mean feat) or to use them against his neighbours and the oil fields. Another thing to bear in mind is that Saddam could well have a had a plan, which from our perspective was never going to work, he seems to have had a unique view of the world political dynamic thats led him on more than one occation to do things which were doomed to failure.

So the question comes round (as it invariably does in these debates) to whether or not he actualy had or was getting WMD? There is no serious doubt that he had them at some point, the question is what he did with them. To be honest a more salient question is whether the western governments (paranoia and suspicion asside) genuinely believed he had them and had what they thought to be credible evidence to that effect. Blair has always given the impression that he honestly beleived the threat of WMD, and wasnt just stringing us all a line. If he and Bush sincerly beleived the threat was there, the above theory holds water, if they didnt it doesnt.

That of course is the question of the hour, we may not know the answer for another 50 years though.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Another thing to think about,

If Saddam didn't have any WMD, why did he play silly buggers with the inspectors the way he did?

If he was innocent, the most effective strategy for him was to open his arms wide and say 'come and look as much as you like, see what you can find'. Zero obstruction and total co-operation with a constant air of injured innocence. Once a thourgh and detailed inspection turned up nothing (as its doing now), he would have won a significant PR victory over the west, the sanctions would have been lifted and he would still be in power. He might even have been able to broker some aid in compensation for the unjustified sanctions. It would have been a resounding win for him. It's happening now, but he isnt around to reap the benefit.

To turn your original question on its head, I've yet to see anyone come up with a coherant reason why he would pursue the strategy he did. It was plainly doomed to bring about a showdown with the US sooner or later, a showdown he couldnt possibly win. Unless of course he was holding out for an Ace, but that brings us back his innosence again.

Personly, I think he did have them, and had them until very recently. With the obvious inevitabillity of a US invasion it woudl make perfect sense for him to secret them somewhere, or else to distribute them to sympathetic countries. I have a nasty suspicion they will turn up somewhere unexpected in the future, with likely a horrible consequence.

[andrewducker]

To be honest, I don't think he thought they'd do it. A fairly standard Arab attitude is "If they're still talking it's because they're too weak to attack."

He did offer at various times to let more people back in, why he then changed his mind repeatedly and had to be cajoled into things I don't know.

This could all be solved by finding some actual WMD, of course.

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

Here's another thought:

The fact that we invaded demonstrates that he didn't really have effective WMD, and that we didn't really think he had effective WMD.

If Saddam had Nukes, dirty bombs or a really effective chemical/biological weapon, he would already be out of the box. For out of the box, read North Korea. Once he had them he would be trumpeting it from the rooftops, because he would have what is known as Mutual Awareness of Deterrent(MAD). Which is what the cold war was.

Once a country has effective WMD, you cant touch them unless you're willing to go toe to toe with the same level of weaponry and suffer the inevitable losses. Think of what a WMD exchange with Iraq would involve in terms of casualties on both sides and neighbours. Probably at best, US would lose a few thousand, neighbouring Arab countries would lose more and bits of Iraq get comprehensively flattened (and what would Sharon-led nuclear-armed Israel do if it took a big hit?).

Apart from the US political fallout from suffering such casualties, what would such a conflict do to the Middle-East political spectrum? Jihad anyone?

..

I see the logic arising from this being that you have to stop a country effectively before they get there. If you wait till someone gets a gun before you try to take it off them, the difficulties are far greater than stopping them in advance.

Could we have just carried on with a program of isolation and preventative measures? I don't think it would work. How do you stop Iraq getting weapons in the long run? You can't maintain a long run threat of invasion and sanctions don't work.

Why now? Because there was the political will to get the job done in the US. Leave it much longer and public opinion would have slid away from sending hundreds of thousands of troops abroad and suffering casualties of war. And as I said, if you waited till the WMD was there, you troops would be sucking it up on their way in.

Why not be honest about the reasoning behind the invasion? You couldn't get away with starting a war because of a hypothetical supposition of future actions. You have to make out like you are already in that place that you don't want to get to.

[diffrentcolours]

Y'know, I always thought that MAD stood for Mutually Assured Destruction. Your definition seems a tad more politically correct ;)

[andrewducker]

Why now? Because there was the political will to get the job done in the US.

Why not be honest about the reasoning behind the invasion? You couldn't get away with starting a war because of a hypothetical supposition of future actions. You have to make out like you are already in that place that you don't want to get to.

I think that pretty much sums it up perfectly.

I think the political will was partially there due to the reasons I outlined above though.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

I was just about to say something along those lines.

Basically, the reasons Saddam gave the weapeons inspectors the runaround, were:

a) He could. He got away with it over and over again.

b) It gave him (relative) safety due to uncertainity. I'm with the line of thought that thinks the US would never had invaded in the first place had the seriously believed he had nukes to fire back at them. Once they were reasonably certain he didn't, then they could invaded saying that he did. Oh, the ironing....

Re:

[guyinahat.livejournal.com]

yup
Which is the 'political reality' that governs out turning the other cheek to every bastard with Nuke. Chechnya, Tibet....

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Actualy, I think if the US got hard evidence of Saddam having usable nukes there would be a fuck off big air raid faster than you can say 'B-52'. The Israelis did exactly this when Iraq built a reactor capable of producing weapons grade material. They just went and bombed the crap out of it with no warning or discussion.

If Iraq were actualy lining up a warhead on the pad, I think the US would abandon any shred of diplomacy and just squash it. I think they'd be right to as well.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

MAD stands for Mutual Assured Destruction (I thought anyway) which while it was the driving factor of the cold war, wouldnt be appropriate for a situation where Iraq got WMD.

The difficult thing with WMD isnt so much making them. Saddam definitely had all sorts of nasty chemical and biological crap. The hard bit is the delivery mechanism. Not many countries have nukes, but even fewer have the abbility to effectively throw them half way round the globe in sufficient numbers and accuracy to assure destruction. The driving factor behind the cold war arms race was that both sides had to keep up with the others weapons programs, otherwise some loon might get the notion that they were far enough ahead to be able to 'win' an exchange. There is a theory (much expounded by Tom Clancy) that the reason the USSR finaly gave up on communism and the cold war, was they realised they could never afford to keep up with ever advancing US technology.

This was never going to be the case with Iraq. Even if he had got Nukes he would have got no more than a handfull of them, more likely just one or two. That handfull would have a range of a couple of hundred miles. There would have been no MAD with the US at all, he could barely have hurt them, while they could turn the entire region into a cinder. Conversley his neighbours are facing a nuclear power with no deterant, except that they inherit from the US. You then get into the qurestion of whether the US would have the politcal will to deploy thier own nukes in support of someone else. (they probably would, but Saddam doesnt have a great track record in calculating these things). Saddams WMD would only have been of use in regional power leverage and defence.

That still completely supports the argument you make above mind you :o)

Also, while they are all called WMD, there is a big difference between chemicals, biologicals and nukes. Saddam definitely had C&B he clearly didnt have nukes as the moment he did as you quite rightly say he'd have been parading them on TV with a big shit-eating grin. Chemicals and biologicals are of far less use to him, he can obliterate civilians, and horrffy the world, but they wont stop a US armoured column marching into town, in fact they would probably have made it easier since the US countermeasures would likely be more effective than his own forces. Neither can they destroy an oil field and bugger up the economy of the west.

C&B are primarily a weapon to terrify civilian populations, at which they are very effective or else to combat poorly equiped and trained forces. Its certain that Saddam had C&B, and I find it very hard to believe that he really did destroy them, particularly when he carried on bluffing out the inspectors. I'm not sure I want to know who has them now but I think we'll find out one day.

[andrewducker]

One word: Israel.

The US would not stand by while Saddam had nukes within launching distance of Israel.

Israel has its own nukes and could happily fire back, but the situation in the middle east if it did so would be horrifyingly bloodthirsty.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Thats regional power leverage though. He threatens Israel, and says 'leave me alone while I gobble up these oil producing states or else I'll wipe out your buddies here'.

It seems unlikely that even as violent a git as him would actualy launch them, except as a last ditch scortched earth sendoff. Quite appart from the devastating response that would come from both Israel and the west, Israel isnt all that big a place and his delivery mechanism isnt going to be all that good. Accidentaly dropping a nuke on Palestine (a very real possibility) isnt going to do him much good in mid east relations.

[tisme.livejournal.com]

My thoughts:

Your reasons for going to war I thought were obvious, and a given. It was about control. Control of the various governments and powers in the area, and therefore control of the oil, and therefore control of the world economy.

I agree with TPO that it was never about terrorism. In fact, 9/11 was probably a godsend for Bush, as it helped him fire up the American people enough to get them behind the whole war without asking too many fiddly questions.

I'm not sure whether Saddam had WMD. I think I would go with yes, and had them removed, possibly because he didn't have an adequate means of delivering them. I don't think Guy's arguement really works about 'if he had them, he woulda used them', cos Saddam would have known that whatever he did to America...they could obliterate him in about 2 seconds. It would be a death wish. I think he's been Westernised enough that that idea would hold no appeal whatsoever.

Oh, and there are a few people who used to work in the oil industry, and then side-stepped to politics very quickly after 9/11.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, 'cept they more or less obliterated him anyway....

He won't be enjoynig his palaces any time in this lifetime again, that's for sure.

[tisme.livejournal.com]

He'll just build new ones. With shiny gadgets.

[andrewducker]

The oil really isn't enough. They aren't going to make that much out of it.

It seems to me (as I said above) to be all about control - persuading the other nations in the area that sponsoring terrorism is a bad idea, toppling the various religious dictatorships and slowly changing the whole area to be more trade based - after all once you open up to outside culture you basically open up to McDonalds and Hollywood.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

You say that with an Ironic spin which makes it seem very bad. But open democracies based on free trade on the whole dont tend to endorce state sponsored terrorism, invade thier neighbours or conduct holy wars.

Its open US and UK policy to try and promote democratic government, based around capatalist ideals, in the middle east. That system of government has done pretty well at keeping the west peacefull for the last 60 odd years, and those of us living here on the whole think its a good thing.

Its not at all unreasonable for the west to want to promote this system, in the beleif that in the long run it will stop the violence that eminates from that region.

Not sure it will work while you have the combination of easy money (oil) and religious fundamentalism. As with most things in life, if people can get stuff for free they have little insentive to work with others. B

[andrewducker]

Oh, I'm entirely in favour of it. I think globalisation is great (when done EU style rather than US style, of course).

But I think that some people looked at the Middle East and thought "well, we're not getting in there through economic means, it's a terrorist-generator, we're going to have to convert them by force."

From the perspective of 50 years down the line I suspect this will look like a great decision. From the perspective of someone having their legs blown off, less so.

The problem with being a politician is that one is frequently asked to make decisions that hurt or kill people now in order to make the world a better place later on. And lots of people don't think it's ever reasonable to kill people now, especially if they are innocent.

[tisme.livejournal.com]

Um, yes. That's what I just said: 'it's about control'. The oil is just a small part of it.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

alternatively, they did it because they could and they feel they can do whatever they like and the world belongs to them. can you believe they want it made illegal to prosecute americans for war crimes?