This Just In: Iraq Concedes to Inspections...

[Ned]

Just a couple of points, AFAIK, we were not formal allies of either Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. However, we had a major air base in Saudi Arabia (since 1938, I believe) and a longstanding pattern of close co-operation.

We probably could care less about Kuwait. However, we care a lot about Saudi Arabia. They asked for help, and we gave it.

Here is a brief history:

"Once the Republican Guard had secured all of the strategic points in the country, it moved to the Kuwait/Saudi border. Of course, the Saudis were alarmed. It was not in their interests to have a beefed up Iraq to their north; the new build up, containing one of the elite forces in the region, was ominous. Iraq was sending more and more troops streaming into Kuwait, by August 6 there were nearly eleven combat divisions. Intelligence analysts at the time understood that Iraq had enough troops in the area to roll over Saudi Arabia nearly as easily as they had done to Kuwait.

King Fahd of Saudi Arabia recognized his situation as dire and immediately requested aid from his most powerful friend and ally, the United States. President Bush promptly ordered the deployment of U.S. ground and air forces to Saudi territory. U.S. Navy ships were also deployed to the region. So began the operation to defend Saudi Arabia that would be called "Desert Shield".

[Ned]

uh Clem, I strongly disagree. The Kurd leaders have had negotiations with the Bush Admin and are enthusiatically backing US intervention. They say they can commit 100,000 troops to the battle. With that kind of support, we will not let are real allies down.

If you listen carefully to Bush's speeches, he keeps saying that he is in favor of an "unified" Iraq. This means that the Kurds will remain part of Iraq and a participating part of its government.

[Roland]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
MtG, al-Qaeda is not being harbored by the Kurds in Northern Iraq. The Kurds, like the rest of Iraq, are ruled by secular leaders, specifically two Maoist factions.

The PUK and KDP are Maoist ? What the **** ?

[Roland]

MtG:

"Some of the reasons are probably personal"

Well it sometimes looks like a family feud between the Bushes and the Tikritis, but even I do not think this is a very big reason. General attitudes, sure...

"Saddam is a *****, and is a long term strategic threat."

How ? By being a nuclear power in the region with 2/3rds of the oil reserves ?

"US unilateral action is pretty delusional - the US has less forces available, a greater scope of action, commitments in Afghanistan, etc. So I don't see US unilateral action as viable, assuming you want to achieve a positive long term goal."

Well I guess we agree that the words not in the Bushies's dictionary are "positive long term goal".

""Soon" is also not about to happen - despite the chest thumping, it takes time to deploy heavy units, and there's not enough in transit or in theater to work with."

I wouldn't be surprised by this admin launching an ill-prepared attack. Would you ?

From the two driving forces in US politics you've covered rightwing lunacy, but I wonder about corruption. There are a couple of interesting perks to be gained from a war and a subsequent occupation of Iraq...

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Arrian
Che,

Yeah, and Poland was once under Germany rule. What's your point?

These two are doozies. Let's go back to my Poland/Germany example. Based on the fact that Poland was created using portions of formerly Germany land, Hitler had "legitimate greivances" with Poland. As for the second part, I have no recollection of an Iraqi offer to withdraw, but even if we assume that you are correct, such an offer is hardly acceptable - since it effectively boils down to Saddam holding a country hostage for leverage regarding his "greivances." Further, I don't believe for a second that he intended to withdraw.

-Arrian

I look on Arrian's posts as a result of him being American.
Poland existed before ww1, and is a historical nation and country. Kuweit is a part of Iraq which was carved out of
it for the sake of colonialists' interest. There was no Kuweit state earlier, there is no Kuweit nation or whatever.

[Giancarlo]

The Saddam move is false and is anything but brilliant. And the only people who would see it as brilliant is Northern Eurocoms and Saddam himself. From what I see Pekka, this little stunt Saddam has pulled has blown up in his face. As Bush said this is not about weapons inspections but disarmament and amongst that many other issues. I believe the US government does have evidence that Saddam does have WMDs but releasing this information could put many field agents at risk.

So far Bush has been planning each step carefully, so way to go!

[Pekka]

It hasn't blown up to his face yet. It might though, and as I said, it has big risks. So far, I still see it as a brilliant move. The US hasn't attacked Iraq yet, yes?
He is playing time and is doing it succesfully. Every day is another small victory to him. In the end, it can blow up sure, but that's what can happen when the stakes are high.
And as for Northern Eurocom insult, learn how to debate. I won't even come down to your level in that.

[Giancarlo]

The US is going to attack Iraq either way. Saddam is probably trying to make the most of what little time he has left. I fully support attacks on Iraq with or without the UN.

Chill... I was not trying to insult you...

[Pekka]

I support the attack too. And I too believe that the US is going to do it, no matter what Saddam does. So he is making it harder to form an alliance, and playing time. As far as that goes, he is still doing a good job.
Don't worry, I didn't take it that seriously anyway.

[Giancarlo]

Okay I guess I was making too much of a generalization when I said Eurocom... I shouldn't of said that. Sorry.

Well the US is getting mixed reactions and in my opinion that is enough. Bush already has several countries openly supporting him... Britain of course, Romania (they announced they would)... I dunno about others... I heard Denmark was actually considering it.

[Pekka]

Yes, Bush has already gained some support. But he could be doing a lot better by now, Saddam is slowing him down. Of course he can't hide forever, he is only slowing him down some.
I don't see Saddam winning this situation in any way, there's no scenario in my mind where he can raise his hands and be truly victorious. So that's why I count slowing down victories to him.. he's not going to be the winner at the end of this.

Naturally Saddam would be wise to step down now, when he still has the chance to make it out alive, but he's not about to do it. We know what he's like, so the only thing that seemes reasonable to do with his logic is what he's doing right now.
He can win small battles like these, but he will not win the war.

I heard the US and Russia are slowly getting a common interests, and in my opinion that's the most crusial step and Bush is working on it and it looks like he can come to an agreement with Putin.

[Giancarlo]

Once an agreement is reached with Russia, Saddam should be finished his memoirs.

[Pekka]

Yep, pretty much.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Roland
The PUK and KDP are Maoist ? What the **** ?

Laugh all you want. They may have changed their stripes recently, but they were and probably still are Maoist revolutionary groups. So is the main Kurdish group in Turkey.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
MtG:

"Some of the reasons are probably personal"

Well it sometimes looks like a family feud between the Bushes and the Tikritis, but even I do not think this is a very big reason. General attitudes, sure...

I was thinking more along the lines of the parallel with Noriega and Panama. Both Noriega and Saddam were our boys, so we thought. The US gave a hell of a lot of help to Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, both directly (raw intel take and analysis) and through financial games like the US Dept. of Agriculture loan guarantees and the bogus loans through BNL.

I think the "personal" aspect is that Bush and Cheney in particular see red whenever they think of Saddam, (we really don't like it when third world tinpot dictators who we think are our boys spit in our faces), and are more inclined toward emotional reaction than purely cold strategic thinking.

"Saddam is a *****, and is a long term strategic threat."

How ? By being a nuclear power in the region with 2/3rds of the oil reserves ?

That's a pretty good start. Add to that his penchant for invading neighbors who piss him off. If Saddam were to maneuver his way out of sanctions, stay in power long enough to have a regime change on his terms, and continue his armament programs, everyone in the region would know he mooned the US and UN and got away with it, so Iraq would be able to apply a lot of quiet intimidation on the arab side of the gulf, simply because the corrupt, unpopular monarchies in the gulf really wouldn't want to piss him off. I'm thinking of the longer term, when active US military presence (as opposed to basing rights or joint-use bases) in the gulf would be reduced. Above all else, it's a competition for influence.

"US unilateral action is pretty delusional - the US has less forces available, a greater scope of action, commitments in Afghanistan, etc. So I don't see US unilateral action as viable, assuming you want to achieve a positive long term goal."

Well I guess we agree that the words not in the Bushies's dictionary are "positive long term goal".

I don't think they have much concept of what the semi-literate arab-in-the-street reaction would be to a foreign invasion and installation of a perceived puppet government. The arabs are one of the historically most conquered peoples in the world, most of their governments are grossly unpopular, and the potential groundswell of resentment and anger is something that any recruiter for revolution or jihad would have wet dreams about. I think the people least likely to be pissed would be the Iraqis, but that would really depend on how the US handles nation building and civil affairs in an occupied Iraq.

The Bush administration has not articulated any kind of vision beyond some minimal remarks about not breaking up the country. Installation of a democracy is almost unthinkable (I'm sure our friends the Emirs and Princes would just love that ), so what in hell would we do with the place? If the US attacks in sufficient force, the Iraqis will fold up faster than a circus tent, so the question of a post-Saddam Iraqi government and nation-building has to be answered now, not during occupation.

""Soon" is also not about to happen - despite the chest thumping, it takes time to deploy heavy units, and there's not enough in transit or in theater to work with."

I wouldn't be surprised by this admin launching an ill-prepared attack. Would you ?

Unforunately, Tommy Franks isn't as high-strung or vocal as Schwarzkopf was, and Richard Myers and Eric Shinseki between them don't have the political connection and influence that Powell did during the Reagan and Bush I presidencies.

An "ill-prepared" attack with what's in place now, and about to show up on exercises, could make significant headway and gain room to set up logistics and support bases inside Iraq, so it wouldn't be a disaster. We sure as hell couldn't go all the way, though, and the stall in the attack would not serve the US interests. Realistically, if we attack unilaterally, we have to break the Iraqi forces and get Saddam's head mounted on a pike so fast that none of the rest of the world has time to get an effective *****-fest going.

From the two driving forces in US politics you've covered rightwing lunacy, but I wonder about corruption. There are a couple of interesting perks to be gained from a war and a subsequent occupation of Iraq...

Maybe...

I don't see it though in the present state of the US economy. NYMEX futures on oil and gas have gone mildly ape-**** on the usual pre-war speculation, but any sudden sustained rise in energy prices would really rock the overall economy right now. Especially mine.

[Roland]

Che:

The KDP and PUK are very different from the PKK. Both are much more clan based and nationalist and I've never heard anyone claiming they're Maoist. Even the PKK's mangled ideology is a homebrewn weirdo leftism.

Where do you get the idea ?

MtG:

"I think the "personal" aspect is that Bush and Cheney in particular see red whenever they think of Saddam"

Cheney is a total nutcase. Bush... maybe. Still wouldn't understand why he should be emotional about that.

"That's a pretty good start. Add to that his penchant for invading neighbors who piss him off.... Above all else, it's a competition for influence."

You think there is a wider plan to strategically control the region ? I'm having my doubts, mostly because of the notorious shorttermism in US foreign policy.

"I think the people least likely to be pissed would be the Iraqis, but that would really depend on how the US handles nation building and civil affairs in an occupied Iraq."

I think that will be one big mess. There are lots of unsettled scores, there is no clear contender for power, there is barely a groundwork for democracy, and the Bushies will likely install some military guy as dictator with some pseudodemocratic poopoo around him. Even then there's a likely need for occupation to hold the **** together. After a while everyone and his dog will hate the american occupation troops. And your puppet will try cutting the strings. Back to start.

"An "ill-prepared" attack with what's in place now, and about to show up on exercises, could make significant headway... the stall in the attack would not serve the US interests."

One problem is the stall, the other is possible ugly surprises.

"I don't see it though in the present state of the US economy."

I was more thinking about the iraqi oil deals and development projects, like those the Russians have been after so eagerly, and reconstruction in general, like the Kuwaiti deals.

[Ned]

Roland, after witnessing the debacle of the German elections where Bush-bashing became national policy, I no longer consider Bush-bashing by Europeans something we American should simply ignore. It already has caused serious damage to Germany's relations with the United States and perhaps a number of European nations.

I can tell you that it is not Bush and his administration alone who feel strongly on this issue. There is a great deal of anti-German anger in America right now.

I suggest you discuss policy without the insults.

[Roland]

1. You don't have a freakin' clue what happened in the elections.
2. "Serious damage" - absolutely ridiculous.
3. I'm quite sure most Americans don't give a rat's ass about it, just as most Europeans don't give a flying **** about US politicians insulting us.
4. I'll insult any and every politician I choose to insult.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
1. You don't have a freakin' clue what happened in the elections.
2. "Serious damage" - absolutely ridiculous.
3. I'm quite sure most Americans don't give a rat's ass about it, just as most Europeans don't give a flying **** about US politicians insulting us.
4. I'll insult any and every politician I choose to insult.

You haven't seen the news discussion programs or listen to talk radio in the United States as I have. Most Americans want the government to retaliate in some form.

You can insult whom you please, just as can I. However, when government officials do it, it can lead to disruption of diplomatic relations or worse.

Moreover, throughout that last two years all we have heard is that America has gone unilateral. Well, American has not on the issue of Iraq, but Germany certainly has.

[Roland]

"You haven't seen the news discussion programs or listen to talk radio in the United States as I have."

I've seen some of the news. Just the usual jingoism there.

"Most Americans want the government to retaliate in some form."

Fine with me. Let Ashcroft say that Schröder wants to detract from domestic problems, and Hitler did that too.

"Well, American has not on the issue of Iraq, but Germany certainly has."

The US made a half-assed attempt to stay within international law, with the qualifier "we don't really care anyway".

How Germany went unilateral on Iraq is beyond me. It may be explicable from you watching too much Fox "news".

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland


How Germany went unilateral on Iraq is beyond me. It may be explicable from you watching too much Fox "news".

It is my understanding the Herr Schroeder will not support the UN if it calls for military action against Iraq.

[Roland]

The US wil lalso not heed a call by the SC. All it wants is the SC to authorize action. And no one is under any obligaton to take part in an SC authorized operation. Otherwise Switzerland might have some neutrality problems....

[Ned]

Yeah, but it will be strange if all our other allies help in even a small way and Germany, by itself, sits on its hands.

[Roland]

The US will get the overflight rights, and if there is a SC mandate there is a good chance that the Fuchs will stay in place.