I don't see an attack on Iraq as a cure for all the problems in the middle east. Sometimes, I believe the problems in the middle east to be too great for any one nation, including the US, to take on. In fact I consider the problems in the middle east something the UN will be unable to handle as well.
Change comes from the ground up. It is people that must rule themselves, and anyone who believes the political systems of most of the Muslim countries are not outdated, is only kidding themselves.
However, the threat exists from Iraq to not only attack US Interests (Israel mainly) but also the US itself. The Iranian missile technology is almost close to completion so that it can reach the US. Their Shehab missiles, based on N. Korea's No Dong rockets and China's Telemetry equipment has been becoming more and more potent with time. The Iraqis already have massive biological and chemical weapons and are well on their way to developing a full nuclear arsenal. For sources, you can visit Jane's Information Group (formerly Jane's Defence) at Janes.com.
It is not even questioned whether Saddam will use the weaponry. Time and time again, he has been brutal in the usage of such weapons.
The question then becomes, when do we attack? Do we play a waiting game? When Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear arsenal, it was clearly proven that the waiting game wouldn't work. Iraq mobilized its forces into Kuwait a few years after and the only Arab leader to support Saddam was Arafat in his own little ploy.
And again, the dangers are there. The economy is not stable right now. No matter what anyone's 8th grade teacher taught them, war is not beneficial for the economy, specially since the only countries that would pay for this war would be the US and possibly Britain and Israel. The second risk is that the governments in the mid east are highly unstable and could become even weaker with American intervention. The Saudi government is weak and the Hashemites are a gamble in Jordan.
The diplomatic arena is not one in which the US has been lately concerned about. There are many reasons for this but mainly it's because the EU has no power diplomatically because of its desire to downgrade its military power (See Atlantic Monthly August Edition). China and Russia are there to make money but more importantly to expand their influence.
Kissinger recently published an article prior to meeting with state department officials stating that a war must not be rushed into unless full thought has been given to the aftermath. That is the truth, so the balancing game comes into play. When do we attack? Have we given enough thought to this? What do we do after? Do we install a Hashemite Prince in Iraq? How long will that last? Etc.
Jane's did address some of these issues in a recent article by saying:
"
After Saddam is defeated: a confidential American projection of a new Middle East
If the Western media and armchair generals are to be believed, the impending war against Iraq will be disastrous. The world oil price will rise and financial markets will remain wobbly. The backlash against the US and its allies will be huge, perhaps toppling pro-Western monarchies and governments in the Gulf and Middle East.
This is the received wisdom of the critics. Foreign Report has had access to the thinking of advocates in the Bush administration about the US intervention in Iraq. Although the risks inherent in any war cannot be overlooked, the critics may exaggerate the dangers and underestimate the advantages for the entire Middle East should the operation go well.
At the outset, remember who the critics are. They are the people who predicted Armageddon in all recent conflicts. The critics claimed a decade ago that the war to remove Saddam from Kuwait would last 'for decades'; its most intensive phase lasted less than a month. They also said that 'huge numbers' of Western soldiers would be killed. In fact, hundreds died. They predicted that Saddam's Republican Guards would 'fight to the end'; in fact, they ran away.
Could the critics be wrong again?
Saddam Hussein is not Bin Laden. He is a classic dictator, dependent on the apparatus of a state, a disciplined security service and a small clan of his own people, the Takritis, who are despised by most ordinary Iraqis, not to speak of other Arabs in the Middle East. When his regime begins to collapse, he will be finished.
The West failed them
When Saddam was evicted from Kuwait and the people were less fearful, spontaneous rebellions against him started throughout Iraq. These failed because the West failed to give them any support; now, with the West eager to help when such rebellions start, they may well prove fatal for the Iraqi dictator.
True, the price of oil will go up, and political uncertainty will affect financial markets. But the US is now hugely expanding its strategic oil reserves, and Opec, with low world prices, can do little to block it. Moreover, Russia is being friendly because it wants to sell more oil to America.
True, the opposition in Iraq is divided and ineffective. But this was even more the case in Afghanistan, yet a government of sorts was put together very quickly, and it is still holding together. The conjuring trick can be repeated.
A new government will not deliver the 'full Monty' and will probably not be stable. But it will be infinitely better than the present regime. And US planners are much more attracted by the enormous boosts to the entire region that will take place should Saddam Hussein be removed from the scene."
For the full version of this article, visit
http://www.janes.com/security/intern...814_1_n.shtml. Jane's is really expensive to have a subscription to, and I'm lucky to have one through my own source, but see if your school has a subscription. You'll love it.
-Rudey
--I'm not here to convince you, but only to present my views based on the facts that I know. If this is something you care to be informed on, I would recommend reading the Atlantic Monthly or the New Republic...not my words. And if you care to see domestic politics at work, check out Meet The Press on Tv.
Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
As an aside to start, I was using the US economic link to Israel (before was a typo, anything intentional will be (sic)'ed, whoops) as illustrative of my opinion that whether or not someone supports a Jewish state in the area, it has to be seen that Israel existing certainly has economic benefits for the US, and any other view doesn't fly (IMO).
I have no problem with Israel as an entity - I look at it as a quasi-symbiotic relationship with the US, whereby both benefit in different ways. The US keeps a presence in the area, and Israel gets more support (not to mention F-14s).
Anyway . . . back to Iraq:
Any sort of formal declaration of war would be bizarre, to me - hard to justify a war against a nation which hasn't been aggressive toward you directly. W/out that, international law is pretty clear - and whether or not it is followed generally, there at least exists some sort of honor requirement to follow agreements we made.
Toppling Hussein is a great theory; however, diplomatic backlash could be a bitch (not that US foreign policy has ever really been deeply rooted in caring for others' opinions). I don't see it as the cure-all that Rudey does, as I have doubts about the long-term stability of any US-propped government installed (see: nearly every other time it's been done). However, your thought process makes sense to me, so I could see it going either way.
I think the concept of heightened US involvement in Iraq is more attractive than most of the potential outcomes - however, if what Rudey says about Iraq's nascent nuclear capabilities is correct (cite?), than there enters a higher level of necessity for somebody to do something. Whether that "somebody" in the cliche is the US government, well that's the argument - and I'm still not sure which side of the fence I sit quite yet . . . so convince me I guess.
|