Iraq (why should we attack?)

[Staga]

LOL !

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by majic
"The Japanese went to war over oil, that caused the odd causualty I heard...Mind you I learn't that at High School. "


I disagree.  Japan went to war to take a step up on the world stage.  (Remember the Co-Prosperity Sphere?)  Oil was just one of the things they needed to accomplish this.  Territory and subjugated populations were some others.  (Oil was just one of the things the Germans needed to complete their goals too.)  

The Gulf War probably had more to do with oil than any other war.  Iraq wanted Kuwait's oil (simple version).  We defended Kuwait because they were important to our oil interests.  Saudi Arabia cooperated to protect their own oil.

The gulf war is a gimme, but I would still argue that the Oil embargo was the primary reason behind the attack on Pearl. The drive down to the dutch oil fields was the primary objectives in the intial japanese offensive. Before the embargo the Japanese military only concerned themselves mostly with carving out their empire in Korean, and Manchuria.
I did consider the German offensives in the south of Russia, but Oil wasn't the primary reason of Barbarossa.

 Tronsky

[Toad]

Don't kid yourself. We can do it alone.

Nation building? Well, step one is remove Hussein. Did you notice the Iraqi opposition groups leader's are meeting here? BTW, give me an example of some Nation that is perfect at "nation building", please.

[Cobra]

Dowding,
I do mind you saying, thank you very much.

And your "justification" for the Falklands is a lonnnggg stretch at best, and at the very least hypocritical.  That whole colonial thing and all.  Your "claim" of sovereignity is a throwback to that now isn't it.  Your claim to protect her majesty's sheep was the thin legal justification for making sure you could keep those oil reserves.  

Of course, the fact that we went in to "liberate" Kuwait from an unwanted occupying force is different then your colony agruement, may even hold more water.  (I used liberate in quotes on purpose as I recognize the only thing we wanted to liberate was the oil fields, but that action still holds more legitimacy the defending our sovereign soil bullocks).

And if you READ my response, I agreed with you about the US and it's European allies owning up to it's role with regards to Iraq.

Of course I'll criticize as I like, I never stated that you couldn't either, so why the huffing and puffing?  Criticize the US foreign policy all you like, hell I do!...Just don't get YOUR panties in a wad if I criticize your government's actions as well.  

I do get a kick out of the self-righteous indignation though.

Cobra

[Eagler]

war/ground troops  - no

a couple of smart bombs on the right target when Intel says he's there - yes.

cut the head of the snake off, then continue to beat it with a stick when they get out of line. I don't see a need for troops or anything other than laser guided munitions and a few laser aimers.

[Dowding (Work)]

Hmm Cobra. At which point in my very first post did I say a war for oil was not justified? I suggest you READ it again (I put that in capitals just for you). While you're at it why don't you READ my last post, in which I said the Falklands war was fought for the resources of the islands. Strangely, I'm of the opinion oil is a resource... sorry about that.

While we are on the subject of Falklands, it is not some colony consisting of a majority of natives and a small British elite. It's almost completely British with no native population. It is more comparable to the Orkney Isles than India and the Raj.

Toad - and from where will you launch this solo assault?

You need bases, ergo you need allies. Like I said before, you cannot do it alone.

So step one is remove Hussein. Step two is err... ask the UN to step in! You know, that organisation who most Americans seem to distrust absolutely until they need them to go police some hellhole.

I'm sceptical of any one nation's ability to 'create' a new country anywhere in the world, nevermind the Middle East.

[Masherbrum]

Easy!  To quote Mallory:  "Why?  Because it's there!"  

answering the question posed by thread itself

Masher

[Hangtime]

Solution??

Nuke Paris.

Think about it.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
So step one is remove Hussein. Step two is err... ask the UN to step in!

I think that asking what step two is, is one of the most important questions there is in deceiding what our course of action is to be. I don't think that inviting the UN over to the party would be the best move. I know you were being sarcastic, however, I think that for "Peacekeeping" functions, the US would like to maintain as much autonomy as possible, and that will be considerably easier without UN troops.  As far as democratization goes, I would invited election monitors from the OSCE before the UN. While this clearly would fall far from the auspices of the OSCE, I've come to trust their abilities in election monitoring.

But the question of "what comes next" still looms large, if not on this board, in the National Securit Council.  I think the first step in answering this question, is to look at the obstacles for democratic reform, as they have been studied in the past.  I have three favorites myself. The first is from Samnual Huntington, he suggests that, while there are obvious exceptions to the rule,  Economic well being is a clear indicator of democratic possiblity. With a per-capita GNP of 1900 dollars (in 1994 figures, it was all I could find on short notice, and may be more reflective of possible economic conditions, as the embargo had less of an effect back then) Iraq falls clearley within Huntingtons "Political Transition Window"  (between $1000-$3300)

Of course, if you look at most of the Middle east, you can get numbers within that range, and yet there are no democracies around (no, for the 100th time, I don't count Iran.)  So I turn to Tatu Vanhanen to help expain this. Vanhanen contends that raw GNP numbers do not give us a clear picture, and that no matter how rich a nation is, it will not foster democracy unless the power within the nation (generally with regard to economic power and education) is distributed among a wide portion of the population.  This, to me, is reflective of the need for a strong middle class to foster democracy. But that is my own conclusion, not Vanhanens. Iraq, to my knowledge does not have a wide power base in any of the senses advocated by Vanhanen (and if you are interested in the formula's he uses, check out this longwinded paper on democracy in the Caucuses )

The final piece of the puzzle that I like to use, is "A Sense of national Unity" This was suggested by Freedom house International (I believe I posted a link to their website in another thread). Considering the divisions within the nation of Iraq between the Kurds and Arabs, as well as the Shiites and Sunnis, it seems that this will be a difficult barrier to instituting a democratic regime.

I don't know what step two would be, but I believe that it will not be successful unless the power bases within Iraq (mostly the money coming out of the Oil industry) are more evenly distributed among the citizens. I don't mean this in the sense of Socialist redistribution of wealth, but rather, an increase in real wages for workers within that industry, as well as increased spending on the public good, especially with regard to education. I'm not sure how the administration feels about that.  Though.

-Sikboy

[Curval]

Originally posted by Dowding


Awwww. Poor old little US of A. Keeps its nose clean but still gets given the crappy jobs.

roadkill. Some information for you:

The US and its Allies supported and propped up Saddam's regime for decades and helped him fight a war against Iran. This included turning a blind eye to his dirty internal dealings, his elimnation of political opponents and his oppression of dissident groups. They gave money, military training etc. Britain nearly sold him a gun capable of launching projectiles over hundreds of miles. He was the West's pet in the middle East.

With the end of the cold war, he became expendable to the point of becoming a liability. His sabre rattling and threats against neighbours threatened oil supplies and hence, when he invaded Kuwait conflict was inevitable.

So don't pretend this is not the US's problem simply because the problem originates outside of US borders. You created the situation as much as anyone else, and arguably have more responsibility for Saddam's continued rule than any other Western democracy.

OMG...I agree with Dowding over something that has nothing to do with football (soccer, for the uneducated).

But..for the record..."I do not sympathize with terrorists"

[Toad]

Dowding, we already have a few "allies" in the area that are amenable to letting us use their runways and docks.

Given that and given our ability to project power by sea and air I don't think it's going to be that much of a problem. Not "easy" because it's going to take a massive, expensive effort, but not a insoluable problem either.

The Iraqis are not in the same league militarily; not even close. Beyond that, they know it. Some of their vets of the Gulf War are still there; I'm reasonably sure they don't want to do that again. I expect that once we make the massive, expensive effort it will be resolved rather quickly in our favor.

Still, I'm not really in favor of it as yet. I do believe that there's a lot of intel and evidence that they are not sharing with us as yet. That's the nature of the intel biz... you generally don't go shouting about everything you know until and unless it would be of benefit to you to do that.

Nonetheless, they will eventually have to make a case for a "Just War" before the shooting starts...... however brief it may be. For now, I'm assuming they think they have or will have the necessary evidence and are simply preparing to do what needs to be done.
***********

Now, as to your UN remark. We don't need anyone to "go police some hellhole". Remember who went into the Balkans FIRST wearing the "blue beret"? Went without the US? How did that turn out again?

Seems to me like the shoe's on the other foot.. the UN needs the US to police hellholes.. because without us, they rarely get the job done. ( to those involved in the Timor action) Although, admittedly, these jobs are almost not "doable" in the long term.

Now we're probably going to police up that "hellhole" in Iraq. When we're done, it'll be a much better place for all its citizens. I'm guessing we're going without the UN too........

[midnight Target]

The decision to attack Iraq or not may have something to do with oil, and we may be responsible for propping old Saddam up for a few years.

So what?

Niether of those things have anything to do with the decision. It may be the right thing to do.... regardless. Pointing out our historical support of this idiot makes no sense at all.

The question of whether we and the rest of the world would be better, safer, etc. with Saddam in a permanent dirt nap, and Iraq under new management is really the key here. (Isn't it?)

[Dowding]

Curval - who do you support again?

Toad - so basically what you're saying is that you'll almost be doing it alone and that you will need allies in and the region.

I'll say it again. You cannot do it alone. Sea based air power is simply not enough to rid Iraq of Saddam and start the process of building a democratic state. Anyone who believes any different is living in a dream world - you need troops on the ground and plenty of them, otherwise you'll have civil war or worse, total anarchy.

Carrier based air power is a great tool if you like making not-so-veiled threats or want to give someone a bit of slapping. But the value of air power in general is overstated. Look at how many Serb tanks were actually destroyed in Kosovo, it was a pitifully low number compared to the actual claims. Infrastructure was easily targetable and there was much success. But how does that hurt a totalitarian dictator in a country used to hunger, disease and death?

As for the UN in the Balkans - the ROE were so restrictive so as to make the job impossible. You know that. Given a free role, British troops would have 'done the business' in Sarajevo, Dutch troops would have 'done the business' in Srebrenica.

US forces didn't have that problem.

But I agree with your remark regarding peacekeeping in general. It's very nearly an impossible task in most cases. If people want to kill one another enough, they will do, and it takes a supreme effort to persuade them otherwise.

I agree with you regarding Iraq. It should be done, should a definite need arise and that must involve hard evidence rather than educated supposition.

MT -

Pointing out our historical support of this idiot makes no sense at all.

And neither does pointing out how the US is basically doing the world a favour in clearing up its own mess - a sentiment I was replying to in my first post.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding
...I'll say it again. You cannot do it alone. Sea based air power is simply not enough to rid Iraq of Saddam and start the process of building a democratic state...

[/b]

Simply for the sake of argument on a slow day...

I think all you are really discussing is the time line. Bases in the area make it faster, probably cheaper too. But the outcome would still be the same using only our own resources.

The B-2's have demonstrated the ability to strike from the Continetal US, with extreme accuracy. The Navy would have to use most of its CV groups but they alone can take down Iraq's airpower and the important parts of the infrastructure and defense that would allow an amphibious landing.

It would just take longer.

Then the Marines would do what they do best, in concert with other airborne forces. Once you have a runway or two secured, the timeline speeds up.

As I said, IMO, end result is the same. Just takes more time and more money.

So, allies or no we could do it.

Fourtunately for our pocket book .. and perhaps for the world if the rumors of Iraq's nuke program are true..... we may be able to do it cheaper and faster than that. Because there ARE other countries that see Iraq as an immediate problem and are willing to lend a hand.

Not that I favor that approach. I sort of like the idea of using RC-135's and satellite resources to pinpoint every thing that remotely looks like a "command and control" location and to map out potential/probable locations of Iraq's "command authority".

Then, one dark night over Iraq... all that stuff goes down in the space of a few hours. Rinse and repeat. I'm a patient man.
 

But the value of air power in general is overstated.

[/b]

I'm not sure the Iraqi Republican Guard and/or regular forces would agree with you there.  And they have firsthand experience.

As for the UN in the Balkans - the ROE were so restrictive so as to make the job impossible....... Dutch troops would have 'done the business' in Srebrenica.

[/b]

And who devised the ROE for that one? IIRC, the ROE set was one of the reasons the US chose not to participate intially. I think we even said it wouldn't, couldn't work under those ROE.

The UN's big problem.. and sorry for this.. when using Euro forces is that some folks there can't accept that you have to crack a few heads sometimes. Not naming any names of course,

Can you imagine Aussie's getting "Stockholm Syndrome" like the Dutch did?

[fdiron]

This isn't World War II.  Aircraft can easily destroy enemy tanks.  Apaches and Thunderbolt IIs demolished Iraqi armor in the Gulf War. There was no 'over-claiming' about tank kills in that conflict.