What was this war about? (re: Iraq)

[Sir_Die_alot]

Haider, maybe missed this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030205-1.html

Though I really don't know how. :huh:

(hint click edit -> find and type in type in Al Qaida. I do recomend reading the whole thing though.)

[kandrathe]

IMO, you make some wild claims to which I cannot find any reference. I doubt some tank grunts would be carrying a flag from the Pentagon, which probably is held to have some symbolic value. Pentagon Flag So, now what flag are you talking about?

The flag was only taken down, when the Iraqi (the few who were there) protested against the US flag.

Interesting twist on reality. I watched the entire event on live TV, and you can clearly see the guy right below Cpl. Chin ordering him to take it down. I can believe that some Iraqi's may have been offended, but as I said above it doesn't appear according to my scans of the Arab press to have been any more offensive to the Arab Street than having the infidel occupying an Arab nation.

Now, IMO, it is not worth wasting any more breath(key strokes) on as I am far more concerned about the hundreds of wounded Iraqi civilians who are in desparate need of adequate medical care.

[Sir_Die_alot]

From reports that I have seen the flag was given to the soldier because he was at the pentagon during 911. Not it was the flag flying at the pentagon then. Somehow I don't think this soldier is high enough in the chain of command to have recieved that. :)

[Taem]

MSNBC News:

Bush launched and justified the war with a flat declaration of knowledge “that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.” Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who took the lead public role in defending that proposition, said, among other particulars, that “our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent.”

Read the whole thing here:

http://msnbc.com/news/903374.asp?cp1=1

Egg on Bush's face? Still too early to tell, but I'm loving every minute of it :devilsmile:

[Occhidiangela]

No war is about 'a single thing.' This one certainly was not. If you insist that you can only handle a single cause for an effect, that is your own limitation in thinking.

As I see it, the decisions on this war involved

Mid East stability as a whole
The relationship of Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian problem
State Sponsored Terrorism
Proliferation of NBC weapons, thirty years of non proliferation efforts having been less than universally successful
UN inability or unwillingness to back up its sanctions
Emotional impact of 9-11.
Viiolations for 12 years of the 1991 cease fire agreements
--Others I may be blind to

Now, any single one of those alone would probably not be enough cause for war. The cumulative effect, and for that matter, the synergy, of the diverse elements made for a good case to use force to change the condition. Force being, in this case, war. In previous cases, limited bombings or strikes had been shown as inneffective measures, as had any number of non-force intensive approaches.

There are likelly other root causes, I just cannot concisely summarize them at present.

[Taem]

No, I agree with you fully Occhidiangela, I'm just getting a kick out of the way it was handled with the media and the backlash bush is starting to recieve. I think it *could* have been handled better (with the media and possibly even what the public was told), but I still agree that there were other decisions involved.

[Occhidiangela]

Risk taking. Any decision involves risk.

The great majority of commentators, including myself, have a less than full frontal view of all of the factors involved in the decision. Now, multiply that limitation with the decisions on what rhetoric to use to support the decision, from an administration's view, and the synergy creates a very incomplete picture.

Trouble is, that picture is what is now stuck in the minds of a great many of the pundits, both pro and con: I personally got sick and tired of the Osama-Iraq linkage I kept hearing about from some Fox news personalities.

So, having sold the 'final straw' WMD issue, rather than the Cease Fire Breach, which was the baseline legal justification, the admninistration is stuck with having to deal with their own rhetoric being tossed back at them by all and sundry.

That is one of the risks of ANY PR campaign: so, you have to choose your words with a great deal of care.

The one critique of this administration that seems to stick is that they will not be getting an A in eloquence when the 2004 report card gets written. Whether that is the 'tipping point' in who does or does not stay in power remains to be seen.

[Moldran]

Mid East stability as a whole
The relationship of Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian problem
State Sponsored Terrorism
Proliferation of NBC weapons, thirty years of non proliferation efforts having been less than universally successful
UN inability or unwillingness to back up its sanctions
Emotional impact of 9-11.
Viiolations for 12 years of the 1991 cease fire agreements
--Others I may be blind to

- Iraq has one of the biggest oil reserves in the world. Strange that you forgot just that one on your list.

- The US want a second foothold in the region, because both the loyalty and the long-term stability of the regime in Saudi Arabia are uncertain.

- The Iraq conflict was a nice opportunity to bring USA´s potentially biggest concurrent, the "European block", into trouble. Worked quite well, with GB and several of the smaller European countries going in opposition to FranceGermany.

Moldran

[Zenda]

- The lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq are more then a modest help to the US economy. What self respecting company wouldn't kill, or at least bent the rules a bit, for 5 billion dollar contracts?

- The example serves as a threat to all socalled "US opposing" nations, without the need to say it loud. The recent warnings to Iran, France, N-Korea, Syria, etc, gained considerable impact, is it not?

- American presidents cannot afford not to go into a war, once they say they will. "Weak" leaders don't win elections, do they? Especially not if they go against their campaign sponsors.

[Moldran]

The example serves as a threat to all socalled "US opposing" nations, without the need to say it loud. The recent warnings to Iran, France, N-Korea, Syria, etc, gained considerable impact, is it not?

Syria: Yes.
Iran: Probably.
But the other two don´t really fit into that list.
The US will definately not risk any kind of military confrontation with N-Korea, and N-Korea knows that.
France: I can see no "impact" whatsoever here. FranceGermanyEurope(Russia) is too strong itself (politically, economically, military) to be impressed by that kind of pressure from the US.

Moldran

edit:

p.s.: But what the Iraq conflict did show is that the axis Paris-Berlin-(Moscow) is not (yet) strong enough to really integrate its peripherical countries into one firm power block. I wish I could have seen the impression on the Euro-Strategists´ faces when they learned that countries like Denmark and Czechia (sp?) refused to subordinate themselves :)

[Occhidiangela]

Moldran:

How is it that you feel a need to demonstrate complete cluelessness as to why Mid East stability is in America's stratgeic interests? Its impact on the global economy. Gee, a sad day when such a simple principle needs to be spelled out, not to mention how many threads that linkage has been raised here. Your implication is that 'war is about oil' and presents a useless bit of reductionism of the sort that I mentioned earlier. Mid East stability is the issue, and it is an issue due to its impact on the entire global economy: oil addiction is a universal sin of every nation in the global economy.

Take your singleminded obsession with oil as a root cause, and answer me this: how has the world gotten along for 12 years with Iraqi production at a fraction of its potential? Just fine, and a whole lot of folks elsewhere made plenty of money by the supply-demand curve being bumped up slightly.

Your dog will not hunt.

As to Saudi Arabia and bases: take it a step further, don't confine yourself to a soundbyte. You raise an interesting point.

If a wave of 'democratization' sweeps the Mid East, which it may, then it is reasonable to believe that some of the nations will change to Islamic Republics, and will likely take a position vis a vis America analgous to Iran's: Yankee Go Home. This is consistent with their cultures still being about 2-300 years behind the West, socially, as regards the relationships between Church/Mosque and State. Catching up won't be an Overnight Express delivery.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

Reducing the American footprint in Saudi strikes me as a sound short term political goal anyway. From a purely political perspective, it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many Arabs due to 'Holy Land' issues related to Mecca and Medinah.

Why put up bases in Iraq? The only reason I can come up with is to 'guarantee their security/ vis a vis Iran. I don't think that dog hunts. The international oil market, and the UN, and everyone else, has such an interest in Iraqi oil that I am pretty sure that Iraq, in one form or another, will be the benificiary of its own natural resources. That detail will, I suspect and hope, get massive public scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic.

If not invited to, as was the case in Saudi Arabia (the King wants us there for his own security reasons, not due to his love for democratic forms of government) how do you craft the host nation relationships that go with overseas basing? Quite simply, you don't. I suspect that internal to the US the aversion to supporting a base in Iraq would be considerable.

That whole piece will take the next year or two to sort out, but I predict that with a 'less dangerous' Iraq, Saudi Arabia will feel less desire for Americans to back up their security. That will lead to the US being asked to leave.

Risk: Iraq evolves into an Islami Republic.

King of Saudi Arabia gets paranoid, begs for Americans to stay. His problem, however, becomes a matter of internal reform/revolt, which Americans stationed on his soil can't resolve for him. Also, in that case, I see the Kurds splitting off completely, to open a whole new can of worms that impacts NATO. :P Now, what my brain cannot see is how US bases in Iraq would prevent that: Viet Nam taught us a few lessons about messing about in civil wars that I think were learned well enough not to go down that road.

[Moldran]

How is it that you feel a need to demonstrate complete cluelessness as to why Mid East stability is in America's stratgeic interests? Its impact on the global economy. Gee, a sad day when such a simple principle needs to be spelled out, not to mention how many threads that linkage has been raised here. Your implication is that 'war is about oil' and presents a useless bit of reductionism of the sort that I mentioned earlier. Mid East stability is the issue, and it is an issue due to its impact on the entire global economy: oil addiction is a universal sin of every nation in the global economy.

Huh huh... slow down a bit :P
My implication is definately not that "war is about oil". But oil did play a role (not the only role, and probably not the primary one) in this war. I did *not* reduce the reasons for this war to the oil aspect.
You posted a list of multiple reasons for this war, and what I did was to make 3 additions. One of these additions was that Iraq has extremely huge oil reserves.
I did not think it was necessary to repeat all the reasons you listed. That does not mean I think they were "wrong" and oil was the only "true" reason.

General Middle East stability and the fact that Iraq itself has the second-biggest oil reserves in the world - for which TotalFinaElf (France) and Lukoil (Russia) had the important contracts with the Baath Regime before the war - are two different (although of course connected) things.
As you correctly state, one reason for the US to do this war was the fact that Saddam´s regime is a constant threat to political stability in the region, which (stability) is important for the US industry for obvious reasons.
Now, the fact that extremely huge (almost completely un-used) oil reserves lie within Iraqi territory itself is another reason.
Stability is one goal, the other goal is to bring the Iraqi oil under control in order to open up an alternative to the Saudi monopol.

Take your singleminded obsession with oil as a root cause, and answer me this: how has the world gotten along for 12 years with Iraqi production at a fraction of its potential? Just fine, and a whole lot of folks elsewhere made plenty of money by the supply-demand curve being bumped up slightly.

Yes, western societies got along fine with it, mainly because the Saudis, in their own interest, kept the barrel price in the 22$-28$ range. But scenarios with a less rational regime, or a regime that suffers increased pressure from the street, in Saudi Arabia are not unthinkable. And as soon as a Saudi-Arabian government decides to use the Oil Weapon against the US (e.g. to force the US to reduce support for Israel) , US industry is in major trouble.
Creating an alternative to the Saudi monopol is, to say the least, a very nice side-effect of the war.
Again: I do not reduce the political situation to "blood for oil". The reasons you listed earlier are correct. Your "singleminded obsession" claim does not fit.

If a wave of 'democratization' sweeps the Mid East, which it may, then it is reasonable to believe that some of the nations will change to Islamic Republics, and will likely take a position vis a vis America analgous to Iran's: Yankee Go Home. This is consistent with their cultures still being about 2-300 years behind the West, socially, as regards the relationships between Church/Mosque and State. Catching up won't be an Overnight Express delivery.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

IMO, yes. The main problem is that socially, they are 200-300 behind the West, but technically, they are not. Modern weapons in the hands of islamic nutcases is something I prefer not to see.

Why put up bases in Iraq? The only reason I can come up with is to 'guarantee their security/ vis a vis Iran. I don't think that dog hunts. The international oil market, and the UN, and everyone else, has such an interest in Iraqi oil that I am pretty sure that Iraq, in one form or another, will be the benificiary of its own natural resources. That detail will, I suspect and hope, get massive public scrutiny on both sides of the Atlantic.

With Saddam´s regime gone, Iraq will now probably get a shiit-dominated (sp?) government. That means that Iraq´s security vs Iran will be much less of an issue than it used to be.
A possible reason for US bases in Iraq (as well as in other countries in the region) could be to prevent an islamic revolution. Western societies simply cannot tolerate too many too radical islamic governments in the region, for obvious reasons... stop of oil supplies, attacks on Israel, Israel strikes back with WMDs... quite a horror scenario.
The alternative to direct military presence is to hope that a not-too-radical government can hold itself in power, and intervene when it becomes necessary. Both options have their disadvantages. In the first case, you further increase anti-americanism in the region and have to live with sporadic terrorist attacks on your soldiers. In the second case, you have one hell of a problem each time the radical islamic movement becomes too strong somewhere.

King of Saudi Arabia gets paranoid, begs for Americans to stay. His problem, however, becomes a matter of internal reform/revolt, which Americans stationed on his soil can't resolve for him. Also, in that case, I see the Kurds splitting off completely, to open a whole new can of worms that impacts NATO.  Now, what my brain cannot see is how US bases in Iraq would prevent that: Viet Nam taught us a few lessons about messing about in civil wars that I think were learned well enough not to go down that road.

The difference is that in Vietnam, you actually had a choice. In the Middle East, you have not. You can leave certain countries to their fate, but not the whole region.

Moldran

[Occhidiangela]

1. Basing in Iraq: while there may be pragmatic reasons to have them, as in 'nice to have' the political price is considerable, and to my view too high. It creates an all too easy to exploit excuse for radicals to use as fuel for their fire. What basing rights are needed outside of Kuwait? What basing rights are needed in UAE? What basing rights are needed in Oman?

Given the change in the past 10 years in military strategy, and the once again effectiveness of floating power, what bases are needed when operations are all efforts 'short of land operations?' In short, absent a mutual security agreement vis a vis the Iraq/Iran case, what mutual security threat would bases in Iraq meet thta can't be met by maritime forces now? I don't see one.

2. Oil, in general: OPEC did in 1973 what it did, and should the oil producing states be able to unite again in that regard (in my opinion they are too rich and too busy screwing each other to pull that off) then we can expect economic warfare to begin again. Biggest Difference? More capacity globally than in mid 1970's. I don't see it as a show stopper. Biggest loser is Japan, not the US, to my mind. The problem with an oil embargo is that those who put it in place inflict pain on themselves, particularly as the lack of diversified economies in some of those states makes them as dependent on oil revenue as industrial economies are on oil: how long they can put up with the pain is an interesting variable to speculate on.

3. Export of the Islamic Revolution. An interesting issue, and one where we have learned a lesson in Iran, or have not: engagement, there's an approach to try. Participation in the process, in an open manner. Does that hold risks? Yes. The other approach, vis a vis Iran, hardly worked. Time to try a different tack, and perhaps give support to moderates. :)

[Moldran]

The problem with an oil embargo is that those who put it in place inflict pain on themselves, particularly as the lack of diversified economies in some of those states makes them as dependent on oil revenue as industrial economies are on oil: how long they can put up with the pain is an interesting variable to speculate on.

This is true for governments like the current and past ones in the region. But should a hardcore islamistic government arise in an important oil-exporting state, it´s a different story. These people do not care if they commit economic suicide. They do not care if they completely ruin a country as long as they can establish their religious dictature and cause as much harm as possible to "the two satans". The pain they inflict on themselves and the population in their country will just not interest them a bit.

Moldran

edit: Fixed quote tags

[kandrathe]

Actually, I think a military confrontation is more likely with North Korea, than with Iran. North Korea has proved itself to be untrustworthy, and so making deals (ala: we succumb to you blackmail and give you free fuel and food, so you don't build nukes) is worthless. But, we won't go in without buying off China big time.

Stepping into Iran now would be to undo any power base that Iranian moderates have acquired, and to prove ourselves a bigger fool than Saddam. If we stablilize Iraq, and Pakistan, and Afghanistan can remain somewhat stable, Iran is now mostly ringed by countries with huge US military presence.

Syria, why? The only reason I can think of would be to do some massive destruction to Hamas, and Islamic Jihad camps and leadership targets. Other than that, Syria is a bankrupt deperate nation that is dependant on Iraq for fuel and Turkey for water.

Germany - they never have really sided with us verbally on wars (not wanting to appear to eager), but just quietly helped to foot the bill. Their play recently was seen by most as a way to curry favor with France, and assert some European dominance. Had France gone tacitly along, or at least were not obstructing us, Germany would have never led that movement alone.

France -- will lose out big time both economically, and in the roles within NATO, and elsewhere in which the US will deal with them. They seem to now occupy that third tier of US "friends", something after "those you can count on to help", and "those you can count on not to interfere". When one of your trusted "allies" sells banned weapons directly to your enemy, well then who needs friends like that. IMHO, Chirac stuck his neck out far, and I'm afraid he might find out soon he is missing something.

EU -- the rift between the leadership of France and Britain will need some time to heal. I wonder how the British feel about the continent and being apart of the EU now. Britain has had to make many changes, and still needs to make more, and then to give up a certain amount of fiscal policy control and sovreignty to an EU dominated by France and/or Germany. I can only imagine what it would be like to abandon something so definitivly British, like their money.

Russia -- we've had worse relationships with them. Iraq was one of their buddy states, and I'm surprised they are not more irrate. US intelligence has hit the motherlode in being able to disect all the extensive Ba'ath party records going back some 40 years, detailing what the Soviets knew and shared with the Iraqi's on terrorist groups, the US, Isreal, etc. etc.

[Occhidiangela]

But they still have to run their country. And, in the meantime, some one else will make dough selling oil, such as Kazakhstan, et al. :)

[Moldran]

Actually, I think a military confrontation is more likely with North Korea, than with Iran. North Korea has proved itself to be untrustworthy, and so making deals (ala: we succumb to you blackmail and give you free fuel and food, so you don't build nukes) is worthless. But, we won't go in without buying off China big time.

N-Korea has way too much military power (probably even nuclear weapons). A war would cost way too many casualties. Noone in the US government seriously thinks about going to war against N-Korea, I am sure about that.

Germany - they never have really sided with us verbally on wars (not wanting to appear to eager), but just quietly helped to foot the bill. Their play recently was seen by most as a way to curry favor with France, and assert some European dominance. Had France gone tacitly along, or at least were not obstructing us, Germany would have never led that movement alone.

Huh ??? You have not observed European politics before the war very closely, have you ?
Germany opposed the Iraq war earlier and more consequently than France did. Had France gone along, you can be 100% sure that Germany had "led the movement alone".
The German chancellor very clearly said "No" long before it was certain that France would also take an anti-war position. Changing that position later would have meant political suicide, you can be sure about that. Schroeder´s majority in parliament would have been lost the next day, and his party would have lost the following election *very* clearly.
If anything, it was France who voted against the war in order to curry favor with Germany, not vice versa. But even that is not the case. Both countries (especially France) had traditionally relatively good relationships with Saddam´s Regime. Both made quite some money with exports into Iraq.
But, more importantly, the France-Germany / USA conflict is a consequence of the new strategy France and Germany pursue: Build up EU as a counterpart to US hegemony. This includes the option of integrating Russia, and possibly even China, into the anti-US axis. That is also the reason why France is anything but impressed by the harsh tones from Washington. They of course knew that relationships with the US would suffer. It was part of their calculation.

France -- will lose out big time both economically, and in the roles within NATO, and elsewhere in which the US will deal with them. They seem to now occupy that third tier of US "friends", something after "those you can count on to help", and "those you can count on not to interfere". When one of your trusted "allies" sells banned weapons directly to your enemy, well then who needs friends like that. IMHO, Chirac stuck his neck out far, and I'm afraid he might find out soon he is missing something.

I don´t think Washington´s reactions surprise anyone in Europe (when France sold banned weapons to Saddam, he was not your enemy, btw - he was your ally :P).
As for the roles within NATO, do you really think France cares ? At present, for what should they need NATO ?
And the EU army is on the way, with its own capabilities to strike abroad, indepently from the US.

Moldran

[Occhidiangela]

I don´t think Washington´s reactions surprise anyone in Europe (when France sold banned weapons to Saddam, he was not your enemy, btw - he was your ally ).
As for the roles within NATO, do you really think France cares ? At present, for what should they need NATO ?
And the EU army is on the way, with its own capabilities to strike abroad, indepently from the US.

We shall see. At present, EU cant handle European security 'solo.' Not due to lack of competence, not hardly, but lack of means and political will. Maybe, as I pointed out elsewhere, some politicians will take the political risk and insist that their populations pay for their own way. That may happen.

At present, it is a farce, but as it is a work in progress, that characterization is a bit unfair due to the Glacial pace of change in Europe.

NH-90. Eurofighter. Horizon. Dreams that take, or are taking, forever to come true.

[Moldran]

We shall see. At present, EU cant handle European security 'solo.'

As Kosovo has proven. But the Euro-Strategists in Berlin and Paris immedately started to draw the consequences. It is their declared goal to enable EU to handle the next conflict of that kind without the US. It is interesting that the US even encouraged them to pursue that policy. I wonder if they still would under present circumstances.

Maybe, as I pointed out elsewhere, some politicians will take the political risk and insist that their populations pay for their own way. That may happen.

I think it already is happening.

Moldran

[DaethWalker]

It is their declared goal to enable EU to handle the next conflict of that kind without the US. It is interesting that the US even encouraged them to pursue that policy. I wonder if they still would under present circumstances.

Just from a personal viewpoint (clueless to what Washington thinks, but then aren't we all? :P ).

I would hope the U.S would still support this. No matter what there feelings towards Germany and France.

It would help us tremndously in foreign relations, public relations, economically, etc...

But, having the capabilty to handle the next conflict and actually doing so are 2 different things.

From my own perspective. It looked to me like Europe dropped the ball big time on that one. And they had the resources at hand to handle it, though it may have not been "tagged" EU.

The U.S. is also at fault. We all pretty much seemed to be standing around a "campfire" with our hands in our pockets. Waiting for "someone else" to make the 1st move. While the "campfire" turned into a "forest fire" before our eyes.

The problem with Iraq, is the U.S. pi$$ed on it while it was still a "campfire" instead of waiting for it to get out of control and turn into a "forest fire". That irritated a few "people" who still wanted to enjoy the warmth of the "campfire". :P