[Poll] Invasion of Iraq.

[Akm72]

But as you all know, things changed rather quickly.

Actually I don't claim to know much about what happened in Somalia, but I'll happily take your word for it.

Adide used his propoganda machine very effectively to turn pro US and UN sentiment into antisentiment. Even the Packistani soldiers, who were brought in specifficaly because they were Muslims, were killed. What happened to them was even worse than what happened to the U.S. soldiers. The rest of course, is history.

I'm not sure that Adide was hated by the average Somali, in the same way that Saddam is by the majority of his people. But it is quite dangerous to mirror-image between different cultures, the Iraqis may (or may not) behave the same way as the Somalis. The Iraqis have had 2 decades of Saddams' bat'hist state-propaganda, I find it difficult to imagine the majority of them believing anything that comes from that source, assuming that the majority have become cynical, rather than brain-washed of course.

Saddam on the other hand, has some advantages Adide didn't have. One, his people already hate the U.S. Two, he has better armed, better trained, and better equiped soldiers. We lost 20 some odd U.S. personel in Somalia hunting Adide and his lieutenants, without ever finding Adide. In the process, we killed around a thousand Somalias. In Iraq, we could get lucky and get Saddam on the first raid, but that probably won't happen. In this invasion, we won't have the supprise we had in Panama. Saddam knows we're coming, his people know we're coming. Again, this could be quick, but it could also be very ugly.

Saddam also has some weaknesses that the US will be able to exploit. A lot of the high ranking members of his armed forces are said to have no faith in him, if the US can pursuade a few of them to switch sides after the invasion, the first stage could go extremly well.
His country includes Kurdish and Shi-ite minorities, who would be likly to side with the US if given appropriate encouragment.
Finally Saddam himself is a weakness, his own personal military skill puts him in the same bracket as Stalin and Hitler. If he senses the wind blowing against him there is a reasonable chance he will run from the country rather than try to fight a tough and protracted guerilla war. His guy is no 'warlord' like Adide, or Ho Chi Minh.

We had better be in for the long haul for this one. I doubt most U.S. citizens are.

I concur that the US should be prepared for the worst case scenarios, one of which you outlined.
But ultimatly, without access to the detailed plans and intelligence, any sort of prediction is based on subjective personal opinion and isn't worth the paper it's written on. Any war is dangerous, risky and expensive, and WILL result in deaths on BOTH sides. But Saddam is flouting the '92 ceasefire and there is a good chance he was involved in the 9/11 attack, and if those arn't good reasons to attack, I don't know what would be.

[Si tacet]

Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

[I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).

America fought Veitnam alone? I dont think so, unless the Koreans, Aussies, New Zealanders who were there are just figments of my imagination.

They did? I'm sorry- that was never mentioned when I was taught the topic. I'll re-phrase:
I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops- they are more than capable of accomplishing the task on their own.

Si tacet

[Stuart Mackey]

Quick poll, do you support a proposed invasion of Iraq?

[I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops. Vietnam was a far more challenging war, but America fought that alone as well (yes, they lost, but that had nothing to do with the number of troops).

America fought Veitnam alone? I dont think so, unless the Koreans, Aussies, New Zealanders who were there are just figments of my imagination.

They did? I'm sorry- that was never mentioned when I was taught the topic. I'll re-phrase:
I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops- they are more than capable of accomplishing the task on their own.

Si tacet

No worrys. Inteesting that you were never taught of other nations involvement in that war.

[Nick]

Good points have been made on both sides of the discussion so far.

What is missing is significant attention to the concept of 'definite outcomes', 'probable outcomes' and 'possible outcomes'.

In essence, one looks at the pros and cons of a decision, assigns 'expected probabilities' to those outcomes, and then make a decision.

Obviously, in the case of invading Iraq, there are massive numbers of possible outcomes, and the assignment of probabilities is going to be pretty damn arguable (note the likelihood of the examples I use in the 'potential costs/benefits' below have wildly varying probabilities.

The principle argument against invading Iraq is that there are known and definite costs of invasion (military expenditure, loss of American lives, loss of Iraqi lives, international disapproval, ongoing peacekeeping effort), and further potential costs (escalation of already mentioned costs, Iraq may simply turn into a horrible mess of warring factions, American withdrawal in defeat, increased poverty of Iraqi people, Mid-East goes up like a powerkeg, international community gets to the point of imposing sanctions on the US, US ruins its economy in the attempt) if things go badly, or if the facts are not correctly understood before the attack. However, the potential benefits which supposedly justify the war (democratic state replacing Iraqi government, reduction in poverty of Iraqi people, more reliable oil supply, 'sending a message that the US will layeth the smack down on nations that piss it off') may never eventuate.

On the other hand, there are potential costs associated with not taking any action (continued poverty in Iraq, US seen as 'toothless', Saddam may be deploying WoMD or harbouring terrorists), but there are also potential benefits (possible collapse of Iraqi regime on Saddam's death, US not seen as a pack of warmongering assholes, remote possibility that there is a peaceful solution in there somewhere).

In other words, an invasion would be a huge, horrible gamble, made with money, lives and the stability of the Middle East. A gamble with a massive known cost, and an even bigger potential cost if it goes wrong. There are no guaranteed benefits to an invasion.

To justify an invasion, it is necessary to persuade people that the outcome of such a course is likely to be preferable to maintaining the status quo, not merely that it has a remote potential to improve the situation. As the situation currently stands, an invasion of Iraq by the United States of America is likely to cause more harm than good, and as such should not be supported. If circumstances change (most likely by way of a significant increase in the cost of maintaining the status quo), then the situation would require re-evaluation.

[Knife]

We have been keeping the status quo in Iraq for 10 years, and in the middle east for over 30 years. Shit does not get better with containment, I am tired of hearing that we do not want to destablize the region. Why not? They are constantly at war, use radical religious beliefs to justify terrorism, take international(your money and mine)aid to fatten their bank accounts, not help their own people. And now stand close to having atomic weapons. Saddam himself show a ability to use such weapons, let alone some not so nice people known to associated with him. To stand and watch while they prepare to attack us if not just blackmail our inaction with WMD is the ultimate arrogance. Attacking them to prevent this is not arrogance. The US will get the blame for sticking our nose in the mess if we do attack, and we will get the blame if we do nothing. So lets take the action that serves us the best and destroy a threat to us and the world.
After the liberation of Iraq, we can pour money into it for oil so they can rebuild a infrastructure and pull the people out of poverty. Plus we could then drop SA like a dead weight that it is. The monarchy of SA would not last long with out us. If Iran sees the Iraqi people free and getting out of poverty with the help of the US, it might be enough to tip the already close balance of power in Iran to turn it to a democracy.
The liberation of Iraq could be the way to calm down the middle east. All the war mongers over there stirring up trouble to deflect it away from them is the problem.

[Si tacet]

America fought Veitnam alone? I dont think so, unless the Koreans, Aussies, New Zealanders who were there are just figments of my imagination.

They did? I'm sorry- that was never mentioned when I was taught the topic. I'll re-phrase:
I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops- they are more than capable of accomplishing the task on their own.

Si tacet

No worrys. Inteesting that you were never taught of other nations involvement in that war.

Yes. I actually went back over my year-old notes to check that it wasn't just me not paying attention- but it wasn't. Nowhere are any non-American (except South Vietnamese) forces mentioned as fighting for the West in Vietnam. Odd, that.

At the end, it all boils down to one question. Is it moral to allow a dictator to oppress and kill his citizens in the way that Saddam has done? Or rather, as we have the means, should we not remove him? Saddam treats his people worse than any other leader on earth. There is a moral imperative to remove him.
This may not be the reason WHY we will invade Iraq, but it is a point that must be answered by the "anti-war" people. The USA and UK have the means to remove a concer on the face of this planet- they should take it.
The only reason why we should not go to war is if there is a threat greater than that of Saddam. It could be argued that Saddam with nothing to lose will loose BioChemical cocktails at those who would destroy him, but I disagree.
Saddam is a survivor. He does not have a compelling reason to commit suicide. If the US and UK have an ounce of sense they will offer Saddam and his leadership a way out- a route that they could take ton escape capture or death. If Saddam is offered this "black" option, with the alternative being either capture (if he does not use BC weapons) or anihalation (if he does), he WILL take it.

Nb. This an idea that I bandied around today in my common room. It's not aimed at anyone, and is rather a suggestion of how things could turn out. Any flaws that you can see would be gratefully recieved.

Si tacet

[Akm72]

...To justify an invasion, it is necessary to persuade people that the outcome of such a course is likely to be preferable to maintaining the status quo, not merely that it has a remote potential to improve the situation. As the situation currently stands, an invasion of Iraq by the United States of America is likely to cause more harm than good, and as such should not be supported. If circumstances change (most likely by way of a significant increase in the cost of maintaining the status quo), then the situation would require re-evaluation.

Nice post!

But I'm not sure that the status quo is really an option. Since the end of the war in '92, Saddam has been steadily improving his political position, while the US (& UK) position has steadily been eroded. The situation has come to be seen more and more as the US/UK bullying the poor victimised Iraq. If we don't attack, this process will still continue; eventually resulting in the withdrawing of our forces from the region. If there is no international concensus in keeping Iraq to it's ceasefire agreement, then the forces might as well be withdrawn now.
Realistically there are three options;
1) Attack Iraq now, and to hell with the worst case scenarios.
2) Do not attack, but keep our forces in the region, in the hope that Saddam dies and his replacement is friendlier. This will probably result in further terrorist attacks against the US, whether Saddam is supporting them or not.
3) To hell with the ceacefire agreement and the weapons inspectors. Withdraw our forces now, and vote with the rest of the UN to normalise our relations with Iraq. Saddam will now have no reason to support the terrorists against the US. Everyone wins, except the Iraqi people, and possibly the entire region if Saddam gets his nukes before he dies.

[Cpt_Frank]

In my personal oppinion, war right now = wrong.
Make pressure on them to let the inspectors back in, but don't go further than threatening.

[Si tacet]

...To justify an invasion, it is necessary to persuade people that the outcome of such a course is likely to be preferable to maintaining the status quo, not merely that it has a remote potential to improve the situation. As the situation currently stands, an invasion of Iraq by the United States of America is likely to cause more harm than good, and as such should not be supported. If circumstances change (most likely by way of a significant increase in the cost of maintaining the status quo), then the situation would require re-evaluation.

Nice post!

But I'm not sure that the status quo is really an option. Since the end of the war in '92, Saddam has been steadily improving his political position, while the US (& UK) position has steadily been eroded. The situation has come to be seen more and more as the US/UK bullying the poor victimised Iraq. If we don't attack, this process will still continue; eventually resulting in the withdrawing of our forces from the region. If there is no international concensus in keeping Iraq to it's ceasefire agreement, then the forces might as well be withdrawn now.
Realistically there are three options;
1) Attack Iraq now, and to hell with the worst case scenarios.
2) Do not attack, but keep our forces in the region, in the hope that Saddam dies and his replacement is friendlier. This will probably result in further terrorist attacks against the US, whether Saddam is supporting them or not.
3) To hell with the ceacefire agreement and the weapons inspectors. Withdraw our forces now, and vote with the rest of the UN to normalise our relations with Iraq. Saddam will now have no reason to support the terrorists against the US. Everyone wins, except the Iraqi people, and possibly the entire region if Saddam gets his nukes before he dies.

3 is morally bankrupt, strategically suicidal and an insult to everyone who has died thanks to Saddam. Oh, and signs Israel's death warrent and the probable extermination of hundreds of thousands (if Saddam invades Iran or Saudi Arabia) or even millions (if he attacks Israel). Pulling out and dumping our allies in the shit is not really an option.

2 has changed nothing in the past decade. Saddam just continues to become a bigger threat. His replacement won't be any better- he'll come from the same clique of Ba'athists who have ruled Iraq for decades. This helps no-one and leaves Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran (edging towards moderation) in the same rising tide of shit.

Let's consider the worst-case scenarios for 1:
Saddam uses NBC weapons on his neighbours.
Saddam uses NBC weapons on the US troops
The USA get bogged down in a long and extremely bloody guerilla campaign.

Of these three, the last one is the least likely. The Iraqis don't have the same affiliation to Saddam as the Vietcong or the Taliban do. Iraq has none of the pre-requisites for a sustained campaign: sympathetic population, powerful ally, suitable terrain, etc.
While it is always an option, I think that the example of Somalia is, if anything, an incentive NOT to do this under the auspices of the UN- just look at the event of "Black Hawk Down", where US troops were forbidden to intervene as the warlords dominated the locals.
In Iraq a strong but non-dictatorial central government could be set up- something else that couldn't happen in Somalia.

If it's the first or second, who doubts that the US and/or would respond in kind, and anihalate Saddam? See my earlier post- Saddam should be offered an under-the-table way out to a "safe" country and his Swiss bank accounts. He's not the type of dictator to choose death by nuke over that (though a successor might be).

Let me know if you see the flaws...

BTW, I don't get this whole "invading Iraq will bring down the terrorists" idea- maybe it's confined to the States. I mean, don't Al-Qaeda have ENOUGH reasons to attack America?

Si tacet

[Nick]

3 is morally bankrupt, strategically suicidal and an insult to everyone who has died thanks to Saddam. Oh, and signs Israel's death warrent and the probable extermination of hundreds of thousands (if Saddam invades Iran or Saudi Arabia) or even millions (if he attacks Israel). Pulling out and dumping our allies in the shit is not really an option.

I'd have to agree with that. Going to war is pretty dubious, but pulling out entirely is even less likely to work.

2 has changed nothing in the past decade. Saddam just continues to become a bigger threat. His replacement won't be any better- he'll come from the same clique of Ba'athists who have ruled Iraq for decades. This helps no-one and leaves Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran (edging towards moderation) in the same rising tide of shit.

If one adopts a long-term strategy, one should not be surprised when it appears to be failing in the short- or medium-term.

That being said, situations do change, and constant monitoring is a good idea.

Don't forget that we're crystal ball gazing, here. It's tough enough predicting the actions of individuals we know well - and we're trying to guage the mood of an entire country? All assessments of 'likely outcomes' (including mine) need to be taken with a large grain of salt. That last, of course, is the biggest reason behind inaction. It's very hard to take active steps unless you are confident you are going to improve the situation - and I think that may actually be a good thing. (Wizard's 2nd Rule: From the best of intentions, can come the greatest harm)

Let's consider the worst-case scenarios for 1:
Saddam uses NBC weapons on his neighbours.
Saddam uses NBC weapons on the US troops
The USA get bogged down in a long and extremely bloody guerilla campaign.

You left out the possibilities for "look, just leave us the fuck alone" solidarity with neighbouring nations. . . other than that, fair description in my book.

Of these three, the last one is the least likely. The Iraqis don't have the same affiliation to Saddam as the Vietcong or the Taliban do. Iraq has none of the pre-requisites for a sustained campaign: sympathetic population, powerful ally, suitable terrain, etc.

Hmm. . . I wouldn't be so sure. There is always the possibility for a case of "Sure he's an asshole, but at least he's our asshole". Humans are annoyingly territorial critters

It would greatly depend on the reactions of the surrounding nations - hence why any wise attack would need to be delayed until the surrounding nations gave at least tacit endorsement. Unfortunately, the question of "Afghanistan, Iraq, who's next?" is sure to be prominent in the thinking of those nations.

While it is always an option, I think that the example of Somalia is, if anything, an incentive NOT to do this under the auspices of the UN- just look at the event of "Black Hawk Down", where US troops were forbidden to intervene as the warlords dominated the locals.
In Iraq a strong but non-dictatorial central government could be set up- something else that couldn't happen in Somalia.

The problem is that democracy requires a certain amount of supporting infrastructure. The trick is getting that infrastructure in place without sliding back into dictatorship.

On the point that a half-assed effort will be worse than no effort at all, I agree. (same attitude I had to the invasion of Afghanistan. . .)

If it's the first or second, who doubts that the US and/or would respond in kind, and anihalate Saddam? See my earlier post-

MAD is a scary doctrine, but an extraordinarily practical one. . .

Saddam should be offered an under-the-table way out to a "safe" country and his Swiss bank accounts. He's not the type of dictator to choose death by nuke over that (though a successor might be).

Ah, but could the Western nations see their way clear to such a course? (I think it's quite a neat idea, but I'm not sure how the hell it could work in reality).

BTW, I don't get this whole "invading Iraq will bring down the terrorists" idea- maybe it's confined to the States. I mean, don't Al-Qaeda have ENOUGH reasons to attack America?

I've heard a similar idea used as a reason to justify keeping Australia out of it (i.e. "The terrorists are pissed at the US now, the more heavily we get involved, the better chance they'll get pissed at us, too"). In that context, it actually makes a certain amount of sense. . . (small, apparently non-threatening, miles from anywhere - there are much better targets to be found)

But in terms of the US? You guys already have so many different terrorists groups mad at you, how the hell could one or two more make any difference?

[Nick]

It's very hard to take active steps unless you are confident you are going to improve the situation - and I think that may actually be a good thing.

Eh, I don't think that was very clear. I mean being somewhat reluctant to act until you are reasonably confident your actions are beneficial is likely to be a good thing in most circumstances (particularly at the international level).

There are probably exceptions of course, but then, that's life :>

[Si tacet]

2 has changed nothing in the past decade. Saddam just continues to become a bigger threat. His replacement won't be any better- he'll come from the same clique of Ba'athists who have ruled Iraq for decades. This helps no-one and leaves Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran (edging towards moderation) in the same rising tide of shit.

If one adopts a long-term strategy, one should not be surprised when it appears to be failing in the short- or medium-term.

That being said, situations do change, and constant monitoring is a good idea.

Don't forget that we're crystal ball gazing, here. It's tough enough predicting the actions of individuals we know well - and we're trying to guage the mood of an entire country? All assessments of 'likely outcomes' (including mine) need to be taken with a large grain of salt. That last, of course, is the biggest reason behind inaction. It's very hard to take active steps unless you are confident you are going to improve the situation - and I think that may actually be a good thing. (Wizard's 2nd Rule: From the best of intentions, can come the greatest harm)

I take the point about being confident that you wil do good- but I think that continuing the current strategy will just make Saddam stronger and more dangerous. Should Saudi Arabia go findementalist, Iran turn moderate, Israel become embroiled in an all-out war, etc then Saddam with nukes goes from an exercise in MAD to a potential make-or-breaker.

Let's consider the worst-case scenarios for 1:
Saddam uses NBC weapons on his neighbours.
Saddam uses NBC weapons on the US troops
The USA get bogged down in a long and extremely bloody guerilla campaign.

You left out the possibilities for "look, just leave us the fuck alone" solidarity with neighbouring nations. . . other than that, fair description in my book.

Well I don't really think that's going to happen. Turkey is on board; Kuwait is on board, and the Kuwaitis are on record as saying that "lots of under-the-table deals are going on" and, should push come to shove, they will support the US.

Of these three, the last one is the least likely. The Iraqis don't have the same affiliation to Saddam as the Vietcong or the Taliban do. Iraq has none of the pre-requisites for a sustained campaign: sympathetic population, powerful ally, suitable terrain, etc.

Hmm. . . I wouldn't be so sure. There is always the possibility for a case of "Sure he's an asshole, but at least he's our asshole". Humans are annoyingly territorial critters

It would greatly depend on the reactions of the surrounding nations - hence why any wise attack would need to be delayed until the surrounding nations gave at least tacit endorsement. Unfortunately, the question of "Afghanistan, Iraq, who's next?" is sure to be prominent in the thinking of those nations.
<snip>
The problem is that democracy requires a certain amount of supporting infrastructure. The trick is getting that infrastructure in place without sliding back into dictatorship.

On the point that a half-assed effort will be worse than no effort at all, I agree. (same attitude I had to the invasion of Afghanistan. . .)

On this point, what sort of track record do the US have of re-integrating fallen dictatorships? Japan is a success story, but what about more recent tiems?

Saddam should be offered an under-the-table way out to a "safe" country and his Swiss bank accounts. He's not the type of dictator to choose death by nuke over that (though a successor might be).

Ah, but could the Western nations see their way clear to such a course? (I think it's quite a neat idea, but I'm not sure how the hell it could work in reality).

I'm thinking about that too! again, are there precendents? (Apart from Himmler trying to cut a deal with the Allies in 1945 I can't think of any).


Si tacet

[Stuart Mackey]

They did? I'm sorry- that was never mentioned when I was taught the topic. I'll re-phrase:
I don't see that the presence or lack of international support has anything to do with whether or not war should go ahead. Turkey & minor states can provide staging grounds if the Saudis refuse, and the US doesn't exactly need the troops- they are more than capable of accomplishing the task on their own.

Si tacet

No worrys. Inteesting that you were never taught of other nations involvement in that war.

Yes. I actually went back over my year-old notes to check that it wasn't just me not paying attention- but it wasn't. Nowhere are any non-American (except South Vietnamese) forces mentioned as fighting for the West in Vietnam. Odd, that.

At the end, it all boils down to one question. Is it moral to allow a dictator to oppress and kill his citizens in the way that Saddam has done? Or rather, as we have the means, should we not remove him? Saddam treats his people worse than any other leader on earth. There is a moral imperative to remove him.
This may not be the reason WHY we will invade Iraq, but it is a point that must be answered by the "anti-war" people. The USA and UK have the means to remove a concer on the face of this planet- they should take it.
The only reason why we should not go to war is if there is a threat greater than that of Saddam. It could be argued that Saddam with nothing to lose will loose BioChemical cocktails at those who would destroy him, but I disagree.
Saddam is a survivor. He does not have a compelling reason to commit suicide. If the US and UK have an ounce of sense they will offer Saddam and his leadership a way out- a route that they could take ton escape capture or death. If Saddam is offered this "black" option, with the alternative being either capture (if he does not use BC weapons) or anihalation (if he does), he WILL take it.

Nb. This an idea that I bandied around today in my common room. It's not aimed at anyone, and is rather a suggestion of how things could turn out. Any flaws that you can see would be gratefully recieved.

Si tacet

Thre is no doubt in my mind that Saddam must be removed from power, the problemis that there has been no visible forthought to the medium to long term consiquences of doing this. If Saddam is emoved via an invaion by American/British forces it may well be that the very forces that we wish to be stopped are only encouraged and the cause of democracy, or at the very least proper human rights and the rule of law, will be seriously set back.

[Nick]

A couple of interesting links.

Insight is an SBS TV show. It aims to bring together really diverse groups of people, and give them an opportunity to air their views on a given issue. In terms of decorum, take US daytime talk shows, and think of their exact opposite :>

The Insight Backgrounder (start of the show):
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/transcrip ... ckgrounder

The Discussion:
http://www.sbs.com.au/insight/transcrip ... +War+Forum

(I caught the tail end of this show - that's what prompted me to go look up the transcripts. The discussion is extremely good. Naturally, there is a heavy slant towards the effects on Australian interests, since it is an Australian show, but the wider issues of international politics are obviously discussed as well)