John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt blow huge honkin' holes in the Bush administration's excusesreasons for starting a war in Iraq.
And in other news, have you ever wondered to whom exactly does Iraq pose a threat? Not Iran -- they already fought a very long and expensive war. Not their neighbors to the north (Turkey) or the west (Syria and Jordan). Which leaves... the south and the southwest, otherwise known as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (here's a map from a very nice collection at the University of Texas).
That would be the same Saudia Arabia that funded and continues to fund Al Qaeda; the same Saudi Arabia that furnished 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers.
Foreign Policy link via the estimable E. Spiers.
How would you deal with Saudi Arabia before Iraq without devestating the worlds economy? (which is all shaky already) Since going after SA now would mean theVenezuala supply gone (strike), the Iraq supply unusuable (sanctions and inspections, and then SA's supply gone (since we would have conflict then).
However, if we go after Iraq now, and replace it with a more benevolent, pro-western government, that means if/when we make SA pay the piper, the world will not be under as much strain, and the use of oil as a weapon to be used against the west will be less then what it could. And the SA royalty know this, Hence their attempts at a Iraq coup and tryiong to forstall the eventual attack on Iraq.
By The way, how come when you listed Kuwait and SA, you jumped on SA and didn't say anything about Kuwait?
I would suggest that Saddam Hussain is an Arab (particularly Saudi) problem, not an American problem. As Mearsheimer and Walt show, Iraq has some fairly legitimate grievances: they did do much of dirty work in preventing the Ayatollah from exporting Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East and received scant thanks from the rest of the dictators in the region. That is an Arab issue, not an American one. The American issue is the consistent exportation of terrorism from the region.
Addressing a problem (anti-American terrorism) by protecting the country that sponsors most of it is a very strange and roundabout way of practicing foreign policy. It gives the impression that the best way to guarantee US military support is to attack it.
Geopolitics 101 would suggest that we should use Saddam as leverage to lean on our friends the House of Saud. Instead, we're doing them a massive, huge, honkin' favor.
The argument that Saddam needs to be replaced by the "Iraqi opposition", which would then be automatically US-friendly is ludicrous. Much of the Iraqi opposition is backed by Iran (still eager after all these years to export Islamic Revolution to the rest of the world). Saddam was the darling of the US from 1980 (when he invaded Iran) to 1991 (when he invaded Kuwait). I would suggest that using containment, deterrence, and the tried-and-true carrot-and-stick to bring him around would be a better idea than replacing him with thugs who would be inclined to give the mullahs of Iran a friendly hearing.
There are simply no plausible policy reasons for attacking Iraq.
In any event, anyone who believes that GW Bush is going to apply serious pressure on Saudi Arabia for any purpose or reason whatsoever is seriously deluded.
As for Kuwait, it should be noted that the Kuwaitis were overjoyed and eternally grateful to the US for liberating their country.
"I would suggest that Saddam Hussain is an Arab (particularly Saudi) problem, not an American problem. As Mearsheimer and Walt show, Iraq has some fairly legitimate grievances: they did do much of dirty work in preventing the Ayatollah from exporting Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East and received scant thanks from the rest of the dictators in the region. That is an Arab issue, not an American one. The American issue is the consistent exportation of terrorism from the region."
What you don't state is that while the personal greviances are, yes, a arab problem, the fact is that they are doing it in a location which contains a major supply of what is currently one of the biggest drivers of the developed world's economy. *That* makes it a American problem (and the developed world's problem), as either country can a) use the resource to blackmail one of the developed nations to side or provide aid to them over the other b) in order to hurt the other nation in the long term, raiding the others oil field, destroying it to hurt its economy, directly hurting other nations economies that buy. c)Manage the supply to artificially raise prices to get more money to deal with the "internal" grievance, again, hurting the outside world. WHy should we sit back and be hurt because it "isn't our problem" yet the fact that we *are* hurt makes it our problem de facto.
If it were not for that, it would be treated as Africa is now, where Islamic riots, genocidal dictators, and racist guerillas all are given lip serviced criticisms by the rest of us as it isn't "our problem". It is a twisted cosmic joke that the oil is located on such a ass-backwards primitive culture that wouldn't be able to put it to use without outside help. However, it is our own collective conscience and morality which stays our hand from becoming truely imperialistic and just going over there and claiming it our own.
Rwanda, the Congo, Zimbawbwe, Nigeria, but with us feeling the effects of their squabbles. This is what you desire?
"Addressing a problem (anti-American terrorism) by protecting the country that sponsors most of it is a very strange and roundabout way of practicing foreign policy. It gives the impression that the best way to guarantee US military support is to attack it."
Right now it isn't done because we choose to, as you seem to think it is, but because we have too. Iraq's Oil supply remains illegal to tap. Venezuala's has dried up until the socialist gets thrown out of office or wipes out enough of his own people to scare them back to work. Are you suggesting we pull a Oil shortfall Trifecta by then temproarily (how long? who would know) cutting off Saudi Arabia's supply to us and the world, shooting the prices up, and destroying the first world economy just because you don't like the "impression" to the terrorists we are giving *for the short run*. I couldn't care less what they think, or the impressions they have. I only care if, after all is said and done, that they are crushed under my boot.
"Geopolitics 101 would suggest that we should use Saddam as leverage to lean on our friends the House of Saud. Instead, we're doing them a massive, huge, honkin' favor."
In a very old-school Cold War thinking with the US pitched against the SU, you would be right. But this isn't (nor should it be) another cold war where "balance of power" or "stability" and "containment" strategies are the only and automatic choices, which is what (in the long term, aftershocks sense) put us into this situation in the first place. We shouldn't just try to distract, leverage or pit one horrific group against another while those under them suffer anymore unless we have to. Our overarching goal should be the elmination of as many of these groups as possible, as it will be beneficial to us and the innocents of the world in the long run.
Your using Trench Warfare Geopolitics as a defense against a Desert Storm organized offensive force.
I remember conversations with professors proclaiming how they were right, the Soviet Union collapsed, and we should have done nothing (ignoring the fact that at the time they were proclaiming we should stay out of the world was because they were soviet sympathizers) but sit on our thumbs and wait.
Yeah, maybe it would have collapsed on its own, but after how much longer? How many more nations taken over by communists? How many millions more would have been starved, brainwashed, raped, and shipped off to the gulags with the government's endorsement? Is that worth it to you as long as you didn't get your own hands dirty?
All the destruction. All the torture. All the misery. All prolonged because your train of thought is to keep your hands clean of some dirt. But instead of dirt, you now have blood. But that's ok, as long as it isn't dirt.
"The argument that Saddam needs to be replaced by the "Iraqi opposition", which would then be automatically US-friendly is ludicrous. Much of the Iraqi opposition is backed by Iran (still eager after all these years to export Islamic Revolution to the rest of the world). Saddam was the darling of the US from 1980 (when he invaded Iran) to 1991 (when he invaded Kuwait). I would suggest that using containment, deterrence, and the tried-and-true carrot-and-stick to bring him around would be a better idea than replacing him with thugs who would be inclined to give the mullahs of Iran a friendly hearing."
Your making the assumption the the thugs in charge (If thugs at all) would do so. And that the Mullahs will be around much longer for the friendly hearings.
Paul, Why do you aspire to keep things status quo? Why do you insist on never trying to improve the situation, always waiting for some power you don't control to come in and rectify things? This is *our* world Paul, *our* time. We never get anywhere without utlizing our own muscle or brain power. The Universe has infinite oppurtunities for those with the guts to go out and grab it.
"There are simply no plausible policy reasons for attacking Iraq."
There are none in your mindset. There are in mine. Both from a national security standpoint, and from a more darker, personal desire to crush my enemies who wish me ill will, and to remind others what the price is to target my family, citizens, and allies. But neither you or someone with your mindset is the President, and I have feeling that someone with more of my mindset is. Try again in 2004.
"In any event, anyone who believes that GW Bush is going to apply serious pressure on Saudi Arabia for any purpose or reason whatsoever is seriously deluded."
Ask yourself why he is doing so, then get back to me.
"As for Kuwait, it should be noted that the Kuwaitis were overjoyed and eternally grateful to the US for liberating their country"
But your entry implies that the second the Gulf War ended, Kuwait ceased to be a factor in the entire Arabian pennisula policy, nevermind that Iraq still is on its borders, and our soldiers were still there, and the Man who tried to conquer it is still in power. Its all, and only, about Saudi Arabia, and no more, the way your entry is. Its really a one dimensional way to go about things.
GAH! Apparently HTML doesn't work (at least Italics) SOrry about that, I tried to put into Italics your quotes..
"Rwanda, the Congo, Zimbawbwe, Nigeria, but with us feeling the effects of their squabbles. This is what you desire?"
I'm sure that whomever comes out on top would be more than willing to deal with the nation's only superpower. My only concern is that Islamic fundamentalists lose.
"I couldn't care less what they think, or the impressions they have. I only care if, after all is said and done, that they are crushed under my boot."
Let's put it this way: the country of Saudi Arabia essentially funded the 9/11 attacks. And in response, we struck first the immediate cause (Afghanistan). As a followup, we're striking Saudi Arabia's worst enemy. Yeah, that makes lots of sense.
"In a very old-school Cold War thinking with the US pitched against the SU, you would be right. But this isn't (nor should it be) another cold war where "balance of power" or "stability" and "containment" strategies are the only and automatic choices, which is what (in the long term, aftershocks sense) put us into this situation in the first place. "
Bzzt, you're simply wrong on the facts here. It's true that using Iraq as a lever to lean on Saudi Arabia would be classic geopolitics. But it's not Cold War geopolitics we're talking about: this is an old-school squeeze play, the sort of thing that governments have been doing for literally thousands of years. And why is it so old-school? Simple: It Works.
As for your seeming scoffing at the Cold War, I would like to point out one great advantage that cold wars have over hot ones: lots less dead people.
"Paul, Why do you aspire to keep things status quo? Why do you insist on never trying to improve the situation?"
That is hardly the case. I want the world to be a better, safer place. My problem is with "solutions" where the only sure outcome is lots of corpses.
"There are [plausible policy reasons] in mine. Both from a national security standpoint, ..."
OK, name them. How and why does Iraq present a clear and present danger to the United States and the lives of its citizens?
As for the GW Bush issue, the close personal ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud are fairly extensively documented, and I see no need to rehash that once again.
Look, I'm hardly a daisy-waving hippie peacenik. If anything, I thought that the war in Afghanistan wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough. But the fact is that 1) we're going after the wrong guys, and 2) even if stopping Saddam Hussain was the Right Thing To Do in the War On Terrorism, it can be done without killing thousands of people (who otherwise would be leading perfectly reasonable lives as pharmacists, video store clerks, and Army reservists).
>"Rwanda, the Congo, Zimbawbwe, Nigeria, but with us feeling the effects of their squabbles. This is what you >desire?"
"I'm sure that whomever comes out on top would be more than willing to deal with the nation's only superpower. My only concern is that Islamic fundamentalists lose."
You just skipped the huge gaping hole of the process; the actual fight. Which is what I had dedicated my entire first paragraph too, but in which you did not address. To you, apparently a global recession/depression in which the rest of the world suffers (People lose their jobs and eventually their homes. Starvation to those nations who rely on the developed world for help) is a acceptable condition because you don't want to get your hands directly dirty in their squabble.
>"I couldn't care less what they think, or the impressions they have. I only care if, after all is said and done, >that they are crushed under my boot."
"Let's put it this way: the country of Saudi Arabia essentially funded the 9/11 attacks. And in response, we struck first the immediate cause (Afghanistan). As a followup, we're striking Saudi Arabia's worst enemy. Yeah, that makes lots of sense."
Perhaps in my post where the italics didn't work, you missed my paragraph that already addressed this. I'll repeat it:
Right now it isn't done because we choose to, as you seem to think it is, but because we have too. Iraq's Oil supply remains illegal to tap. Venezuala's has dried up until the socialist gets thrown out of office or wipes out enough of his own people to scare them back to work. Are you suggesting we pull a Oil shortfall Trifecta by then temproarily (how long? who would know) cutting off Saudi Arabia's supply to us and the world, shooting the prices up, and destroying the first world economy just because you don't like the "impression" to the terrorists we are giving *for the short run*. I couldn't care less what they think, or the impressions they have. I only care if, after all is said and done, that they are crushed under my boot.
>"In a very old-school Cold War thinking with the US pitched against the SU, you would be right. But this isn't (nor >should it be) another cold war where "balance of power" or "stability" and "containment" strategies are the only >and automatic choices, which is what (in the long term, aftershocks sense) put us into this situation in the first >place. "
"Bzzt, you're simply wrong on the facts here. It's true that using Iraq as a lever to lean on Saudi Arabia would be classic geopolitics. But it's not Cold War geopolitics we're talking about: this is an old-school squeeze play, the sort of thing that governments have been doing for literally thousands of years. And why is it so old-school? Simple: It Works. "
Or simply because nobody desired to put into the effort to create some new plays in the foreign policy playbook not to mention the conditions back then were different then they are today. For thousands of years, governments did not have the gap in abilities between the one nation and the others to actually thing about going into the far off lands and just changing the players in such a short time without a all-out mobilization for the effort. Now, that is diffferent then where we are today, where calling up reservists to deal with some logistics, running a deficit for a year, and a build-up takes a few months is pretty much it. It's like insisting we stick to a old rotary dial phone when we have the option of using our Nextel Mobile Phone.
"As for your seeming scoffing at the Cold War, I would like to point out one great advantage that cold wars have over hot ones: lots less dead people."
The "Cold" War was far from cold if you look at history. Even ignoring the attempts at containment of the SU which lead to thousands of dead people (which you claimed did not occur), THe Soviet Union murdered and starved 50 million of those poor sould under its control, and China another 50 Million. Yeah, such a small price to pay to keep your hands "clean".
However, as I think about it, our strategies do not differ as much as one might think. We both want leverage on Saudi Arabia, but unlike you, I believe Saddam Hussein has demonstrated that he is too unreliable and untrustworthy to be used as leverage. That dog has bit our hand far too many times to be trusted to watch over the children.
>"Paul, Why do you aspire to keep things status quo? Why do you insist on never trying to improve the situation?"
"That is hardly the case. I want the world to be a better, safer place. My problem is with "solutions" where the only sure outcome is lots of corpses."
No, you've demostrated through your statements that huge mass graves of corpses is perfectly fine with you, but as long as it isn't your hands that are in the dirt trying to make sure the corpses deserve to be there.
>"There are [plausible policy reasons] in mine. Both from a national security standpoint, ..."
"OK, name them."
1)It gives us now a regime that at least hasn't demonstrated yet that it'll attempt to stab us in the back first chance it gets
2)It location allows us a base of operations for soldiers outside of Saudi Arabia for leverage against several hostile nations.
A)Syria, whose funding and assistance to Hezbollah (who has a record of killing and taking hostages
B)Iran, for whom we can then, with more easy then previously, support the overthrow of the the fundamentalists running the country, hopefully before they acquire their own nuclear weapons.
Taken from BIll Quick's posting of Stratfors newsletter in a more comprehensive form:
'1. It takes out of the picture a potential ally for al Qaeda, one with sufficient resources to multiply the militant group's threat. Whether Iraq has been an ally in the past is immaterial - - it is the future that counts.
2. It places U.S. forces in the strategic heart of the Middle East, capable of striking al Qaeda forces whenever U.S. intelligence identifies them.
3. Most important, it allows the United States to bring its strength --conventional forces -- to bear on nation-states that are enablers or potential enablers of al Qaeda. This would undermine strategically one of the pillars of al Qaeda's capabilities: the willingness of established regimes to ignore al Qaeda operations within their borders.'
3) A Friendlier, more trustworthy regime in place gives us the ability to asorb the impact of the lack of oil supply should we decide to go after Saudi Arabia. Even if we decide not to go in military on SA, we can then stop purchasing Saudi Oil and go to the Iraqi Oil, and screw them over economically.
"How and why does Iraq present a clear and present danger to the United States and the lives of its citizens?"
It is a regime that has open hostility towards the United States, a willingness and history of using WMD on civilians and a history of encouraging and cooperating with Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups while attempting to acquire nuclear (another form of WMD) weapons due to the reason that we have blunted its efforts to conquer the Arabian Pennisula. You need to give me the reasons why we should wait until we get hit with another major terrorist attack before we can go in and remove them on our terms.
"As for the GW Bush issue, the close personal ties between the Bush family and the House of Saud are fairly extensively documented, and I see no need to rehash that once again."
If your stating that GW Bush intends not to go after the killers and supporters of thousands of American civilians because of his "families friends" you damn well better provide evidence. You can find documents linking the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. You want to claim that Bush does not want to find/kill Bin Laden because of his family ties with BIn Laden's family? Go on, at least you'll be consistent then.
Oh Hell, for Shits and giggles, lets just assume you are correct. Will this connection and policy of "hand's off, he's a friend" follow in the follow presidencies as well? Then what?
"Look, I'm hardly a daisy-waving hippie peacenik. If anything, I thought that the war in Afghanistan wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough. But the fact is that 1) we're going after the wrong guys, and 2) even if stopping Saddam Hussain was the Right Thing To Do in the War On Terrorism, it can be done without killing thousands of people (who otherwise would be leading perfectly reasonable lives as pharmacists, video store clerks, and Army reservists)."
I guess that the entire WOT is wrong then, since thousands have already died at the onset. Oops.