Stratfor.com suggests that the campaign against Iraq is succeeding. I think Iraq's recent "overtures" are a clear indication that Hussein is worried. Will we see him disappear like Ceausescu or Milesovic? Peace.
My impression (and I'm no expert) is that Saddam has a very firm grip on power in Iraq. A few years ago there was a plot by the CIA to kill Saddam. It backfired badly, resulting in a bunch of dead CIA agents. Apparently, he has study all major coups of the 20th century and has measures in place to prevent any from succeeding. Of course, any leader can be toppled by a popular uprising of sufficient magnitude, but I can't see that happening in Iraq in the near future. --- edit: typo
Why the U.S. will attack Iraq. Springtime, Taxes, and the Attack on Iraq http://www.techreview.com/articles/muller020702.asp
Yep, I think Iraq and a few others are looked upon as wild animals in an otherwise domesticated world. That's the pitch, anyway. Certainly they pose danger to the domesticated world.
If we can test out some of our new toys and get rid of a problem (at least on humanitarian ground...the Iraqi people are suffering)...
The people are suffering, this is true. But what do you envision after your suggestion that the United States “test out some of our new toys and get rid of a problem?" Leave a power vacuum as we did in Afghanistan in the eighties? Iraq has Shi'ites in the South who have more in common with Iran than anybody else, Sunni clans in the middle of the country and Kurds in the north who have historically hated and tried to kill anybody who got near them from the time of Xenophon in the 5th century BCE. Who will run the country? Should the US install an Iraqi ex-General as a “kinder and somewhat gentler Saddam” running Iraq with Turkish help, as a replacement for Saudi Arabia? Will there be a struggle be with Iran for the allegiance of the Shiite majority in Iraq? How do we prevent the breakup of the country into it’s three natural parts? Or should we? Since it's boundaries are based on the political balance in existence at the time of its creation, is there a reason why those boundaries should not change to reflect political changes? Perhaps the U. S. should indulge in a little AntiNeoPostmodernist Colonialism. Go in, tear up the map and dismember the country into whatever we find easiest to cope with today. Screw trying to deal with the problems. Just make them smaller, more quarrelsome and more numerous. Maybe it is time that the Ottoman Empire was re-assembled. The current borders in the Middle East owe more to a backroom deal between the British and French than to natural boundaries based on traditional ethnic and cultural affinities; certainly the British/French arrangements to replace it have been a flop. The Ottomans were able to manage most of it for hundreds of years. They arguably run the best Middle Eastern country, maybe they are eminently qualified to get their empire back. It is quite noticeable that a majority of the intractable conflicts in our world involve political boundaries left behind by Britain, and to a much lesser extent France and others, in their hasty withdrawal from Empire. "Divide and Rule" worked colonially, but is a lousy basis for a nation. National boundaries in the Middle East are arbitrary and modern and in a state of flux anyway. Syria is in the process of annexing Lebanon, which it regards as traditionally its territory. In the 1950's Egypt, Syria and Yemen combined to form the United Arab Republic. It soon flew apart, but the fact that it happened at all is an indication of the strength of Pan Arabism and the unconcern about borders. Some countries seem to have a better chance of being stable democracies when their people speak the same language and have the same culture. The Balkans are a perfect example; Yugoslavia had to break up into ethnic enclaves before it had a chance of democratic government. Woodrow Wilson's concept of Yugoslavia appears to have been a big mistake. Iraq, another Yugoslavia, might have to lapse back into its natural state, Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis to escape from dictatorship. These are not necessarily suggestions, but I would feel more comfortable with my government letting me know what its long-range vision is, rather than presenting me with another “bomb ‘em and leave ‘em” military solution. Peace.
The long range vision is this: Suddenly we find ourselves as the leader of the free world. Now we have the responsibility to help. Even the Moslems want our help (just ask any intelligent Moslem and anyone in Turkey). Turkey wants their brothers to come to the same level. We are more aware now than before. So, we will proceed along that path. The alternative is not pretty.
Let's not forget that Saddam was an American tool used for the purpose of punishing Iran back in the 80's.
The property of humans have not changed much in the last 5000 years. Some bury their head in the sands, others are smart enough to overcome their cognitive bias. Look at Kenneth Lay, who buries his head in the Enron sand box, until it blew up. Sadam's view of the world is like the frog who grew up in a little pond and have no understanding of the world outside.
I'm Back We have to attack Iraq. The cease fire treaty and weapons inspectors are small reasons, if he were to get a nuclear weapon then we'll have a big problem. We have never fought a direct war against a nation that has nuclear weapons. Though Hussein is a madman he is not stupid. When his grasp on power is endangered then he would use the bomb against us or less likely Israel. Aside from the usage of a nuke, if Iraq gets the bomb than Iran will agressivly purusue a nuclear weapon. Iraq is a rather hated country, which means Saudi Arabia would want one, then Turkey, so and and so foruth until you have a Mid-East arms race. The massive expendature in money towards nukes would plunge the region into worse poverty than it is currently, making the ground even more fertile for a massive revolution. The presence of a nuclear bomb is enough to make the whole area go ape shit. Plus we have to remember that most of the worlds oil is in the mid east, we don't need a country forcing an embargo against the west with a few big ones up their sleves to back it up. The Third Army is already in Kuwait, since Dec, they were one of the biggest opperators in the Gulf War. We'll send forces in up through Kuwait, tanks, planes, etc, and then forces down from Turkey. Special Ops and air power will break the country up enough, and then we send in the big stuff to Baghdad.
The United States Army Forces Central Command (ARCENT-SA), also has soldiers deployed in Saudi Arabia. Removing Hussein might be part of a strategy for removing US troops due to the growing unrest in Saudi Arabia for their presence on Saudi soil. Since the troops are ostensibly there to protect the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields from Hussein, if he is removed from power, the troops can be withdrawn. I believe that a secular, relatively democratic Iraq would be much more of a risk to Saudi Arabia than Saddam Hussein. If I remember correctly, U.S. support for the Saudi family was strictly a Cold War alliance to block the USSR from controlling the whole Middle East. The only reason left for a US military alliance with the Saudis is the Cold War era regime in Baghdad. With the Baathist regime gone from Iraq (and Syria also), the US could walk away from the Saudi family and leave them to their fate. Iraq would again become a major source of oil at the expense of Saudi Arabia. Peace.
Okay the royals are left free of foreign threats, but they would still be vulnerable to overthrow from the inside. We need to change the relationship w/Saudi Arabia. We'll have to a have a presence in the middle east for decades, safeguarding new gov'ts in Iraq, Iran, etc, and monitoring the Israeli conflict. Reforms should be instituted in S. Arabia, they are a huge supporter of terrorism, finance more than anything. Fostering the terrorists keeps them off of the royals for the moment, and beats us up. If we leave Saudi Arabia, then aren't we giving into Bin Laden's demand of American personelle leaving the Holy Land?
And there you hit it right on the money, as far I am concerned. It is important that the U.S. not even allow the appearance of acquiescing to terrorism demands, yet the Saudis will want us out. A nice little quandary the current administration has created. Peace.
I'd just like to ask where you got this idea that you are the leaders of the free world? Doesn't it require at least 10 million dollars to run for president over there? And aren't there about 30 million homeless people? And aren't government decisions about life saving drugs based on the chequebooks of large companies? Now, I know every government on Earth has problems. Where did this idea come from, that the USA is in any way a leader in democracy?
Diplomacy should be applied first, but Saddam hasn't been very warm to it. Hussein isn't a very peacefull guy by developing a nuclear weapon which would be used when he goes to invade Saudi Arabia or Iran.
I never claimed that attacking Iraq would bring peace, obvioulsy it would be war. Better us giving it to Iraq, than a terrorist blowing up a nuke in Times Square, or for Hussein to invade another country with a nuke to keep him there.
I believe George Bush is determined to pick a fight with Saddam Hussein. An American intelligence source was quoted by the U.K.'s Guardian as saying the "White House will not take yes for an answer" when a international envoy requests to inspect Iraq's weapon systems (full fext here). Regardless of how Hussein responds, the suggestion is that Bush will keep pushing him beyond a point he is willing to go. Hussein is a good choice for an enemy. Very little public relations work needs to be done to convince Americans that Saddam is a member of the “evil ones.” Although he is indeed a very ruthless dictator, there is one problem: White House and Defense Department officials admit that Hussein was not involved in the September 11th attacks, and they don't have any evidence he plans to employ terrorism against the United States. Are we surprised? Bush and his cabinet have been saying since September 11th that this war was not an attempt to bring to justice those who committed the attacks on September 11th. From that day, this "New War" With Terror has been a war against all those who may pose a threat of international terror. From the beginning this New War was designed to be preemptive. By preemptive, I mean the American federal government will be the aggressor against those it finds politically unacceptable. The next phase of the New War will be one without provocation. Many members of the EU do not support an unprovoked attack and Arab leaders will likely consider an attack on Saddam to be American Imperialism (a very interesting side-article on that point.) Saddam Hussein has bad political beliefs and therefore may pose a risk of sponsoring terrorists. But, if the United States goes after Saddam, whom will they go after next? Surely there are other dictatorships Bush's administration disagrees with. Can the U.S. military fight them all? Should they? If Bush were going to fight Iraq, would not it make more sense to make a preemptive strike against China. They kill more people. They are even more brutal. Oh, but wait… they give us cheap goods from slave labor and they have nuclear weapons. Whereas we could use Saddam's oil and the worst he could do is release chemical and/or biological weapons against Israel. Initiating more wars - that's not a good way to reduce violence in the world. But, that is the path the Bush administration is heading down, with the United States engaged in perpetual warfare against the next person or regime that disagrees with whoever occupies the White House at any given time. Peace.
Just a couple of thoughts on Iraq. No doubt Saddam Hussein is one of the nastiest pieces of work currently running a country, but what exactly has Iraq done to justify its threat status over the past decade? Pursued weapons of mass destruction? I'm sure he's done what he can, but lets not forget just how much was dismantled by UN inspectors who were in the country for 8 years. Add that to the embargo and I think Iraq (within the current containment policy) will take decades to restock its chemical and biological arsenal. As for nukes, I think there's no way they can develop them under current conditions. (Meanwhile, India and Pakistan have both become nuclear powers with little in the way of repraisals and Israel continues to sit pretty as the only Middle East country with a nuke. If they really don't want their neighbours to pursue nuclear weapons, they should ditch their own - talk about provocation) Threat to Neighbours? Little doubt that an unshackled Iraq is a danger (Kuwait and Iran), but in its current state Iraq can't even exercise control over the semi-autonomus Kurds in the north, much less do anything to Iran, Kuwait or Saudi. (Meanwhile Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in a policy of creeping annexation and Pakistan and India merrily rattle their sabres) Terrorist Threat? As both Goofyfish and the CIA have said, Iraq has not been linked to any terrorist attacks for the past 7 years and there is no evidence that the country was involved in 11 Spetember or is planning anything at all. (Meanwhile Saudi Arabian individuals - US buddies - continue to fund extremist groups and Pakistan has continued its covert backing of the Taliban - where do you suppose OBL is?) So if Iraq is being adequately contained, why hit the country? Good question. It's easy(ish). Bush has a family vendetta to finish. It would better if he wasn't there. And, if a US-friendly government was installed US oil companies could have a bonanza! The US has just about closed off the other potential oil provinces to US firms, so why not Iraq (and it's likely 200 billion barrels of untapped oil?) I'll tell you why not The Arabs. The Europeans. The Russians. How many friendly nations does Bush want to piss off? I know the US can go it alone, but doesn't it make more sense to build consensus? Iraq is contained. Deal with Israel - problem solved!
hmmm,... As I saw in a interresting covering already last year,...before 9/11 there is reason to believe that Iraq has already develloped nukes here's a link
