The War Against "Excessive Influence" Over Oil

[Chris Alger]

In a recent NYT column, liberal and thrice-Pulitzered Thomas Friedman makes the obvious point that the "primary reason" the U.S. is concentrating on Iraq is to prevent Saddam Hussein from "extending his influence" over Persian Gulf oil. Friedman supports this motive. "I have no problem with a war for oil," providing that we get serious about energy conservation and truly democratize Iraq. "There is nothing illegitimate or immoral about the U.S. being concerned that" Hussein "might acquire excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base." Friedman doesn't posit how Saddam's track record suggests any likelihood that he "might" acquire such influence, or even what influence would be "excessive," or where one can see any current influence he has on world oil markets. Nor does he address the obvious threat of a truly democratic Iraq having "excessive influence" over oil, as in the case where everyone votes for someone who promises not to sell it to a country that brought them war and despoliation. (BTW, the concern over oil is not only that it's necessary to fuel industry, but that the huge flow of dollars it generates end up in -- or spend enough time in -- the right hands).

But kudos to Friedman for at least stating the obvious instead of the usual propaganda about averting terrorism, spreading democracy and upholding human rights and international law. After all, if the U.S. were really going to war over WMD in the hands of brutal dictators, we'd at least refrain from assisting them, like we do now with Pakistan and used to with Iraq. Threat to his neighbors? Try convincing Iraq's neighbors: not even fanatically pro-U.S. Turkey to the north nor fanatically anti-Saddam Iran to the east favor Bush's war. Security Council resolutions? Ariel Sharon keeps them on a roll next to his bathroom sink (like the one passed three months ago demanding Israel's unconditional withdrawal from the West Bank, ignored without a peep from the U.S.).

What about the price to prevent Hussein's hypothetical future excessive influence over oil? A confidential UN report leaked a few days ago predicts 500,000 "direct and indirect" Iraqi casualties in the event of war, with an additional 3 million people facing malnutrition so severe they'll need "therapeutic feeding." Iraq has 23.6 million people. Terrorists causing comparable damage to the U.S. would mean over 5 million American casualties, requiring perhaps 1,000 attacks of 9/11 magnitude.

If the U.S. is justified in hurting this many people in order to preclude Iraq from "acquring excessive influence over the natural resource that powers the world's industrial base," would it be immoral for terrorists to do the same to the U.S. on the grounds that the U.S. already has "excessive influence" over "the world's industrial base," or perhaps the bread basket that could feed the estimated 800 million people suffering from malnutrition?

Put it another way: does the U.S. (or perhaps, "the West") alone have a pirate's right to inflict mass destruction in order to maintain its standard of living, or is violence against U.S. civilians to obtain a better share of basic resources justifiable?

I believe that one can answer no to the latter with a clear conscience only if one opposes the proposed war against Iraq.

The good news is that the war push might be unraveling faster than Sharon's reelection campaign. The possibility of Iraq aquiring nukes has grown more remote. Turkey and Indonesia are seriously balking. Warren Christopher has now joined Kissinger, Scowcroft and Brzezinski as publicly questioning the rationality of war, an unprecented (including pre-WWII) display of bipartisan foreign policy elites attacking war policy. And not that it matters much, but the anti-war movement is much better organized than it was in 1965.

Link to Friedman's Jan 5 column: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/opinion/05FRIE.html?tntemail1

Link to UN report (available through the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq website): http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.html

[MMMMMM]

Well what about what most of the Iraqi people want? Does that count, or are you just presuming they don't want Saddam deposed?

About 2/3 of Iraqis are severely oppressed by Saddam--they're not Baathists, yet even many Baathists live in fear. I can't find the article right now, but a couple months ago I read of a poll conducted inside Iraq...it showed that the majority of Iraqis would be happy to see Saddam deposed. Deposing dictators entails casualties. The fact that we, and the rest of the free world, have an interest in maintaining access to the world's oil supplies is important too. So is the increasing danger of Saddam continuing to develop WMD and eventually (maybe soon) supplying these weapons to terrorist groups who mean to target us.

I really take exception to the liberal philosophy that avoiding war is necessarily better than deposing brutal dictators. While we can't and don't depose them all, the very worst ones should be deposed--especially if their continued existence threatens us or the free world.

Why liberals seem to insist that leaving the worst dictators in power to continue abusing their own people is better than war is beyond me--especially potentially dangerous, psychopathic thugs like Saddam. If there ever was a dictator who should be deposed for both moral and pragmatic reasons, Saddam fits the description as well as almost anyone in history. And while there will undoubtedly be Iraqi casualties and suffering in a war, the same holds true if Saddam stays in power--he and his sons will just go on their merry way, murdering the opposition, torturing and raping--for a long time yet to come. He's been at it for decades now: why let him and his sons continue in this vein for decades longer?

I know if I were in an oppressed country, ruled by a tyrant, I'd be hoping some greater power would set us free. Maybe you wouldn't. Maybe you think it's better to live as a slave than to take your chances on living or dying free. Well the people of Iraq can't be freed without our help. Don't assume the majority of them don't want us to free them from the Butcher of Baghdad. It's a presumptuous and arrogant attitude, and I don't think it truly represents the feelings of the majority of the Iraqi people.

[MMMMMM]

This post presumes that the potential war against Iraq is only about oil and that there are no valid anti-terror arguments for the war. It presumes that Saddam poses no WMD threat now or in the near future (either by himself or by terrorist group proxy). These suppositions are then expanded as if they were facts (a common Chomsky technique), and potential Iraqi casualties are compared to 9/11 victims as if the comparison is somehow meaningful. The USA is cast in the role of a pirate, willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions in order to ensure that oil revenue "ends up in the right hands." From this conjecture the question is raised whether terrorists may equally have the right to inflict equivalent harm on the US--even on US citizens--since the US already has "excessive influence" over the word's industrial base and bread basket (also, the fact that Saddam torched the oilfields before is conveniently ignored--as his attack on Kuwait is ignored when Alger claims his neighbors don't fear him--no mention of Kuwait, of course). The word "control" over resources is used broadly, conveniently ignoring the fact that the West PAYS for the oil, and that the countries which receive our dollars are damn glad to get the currency in exchange for an abundant resource they can only use a limited amount of themselves.

This post is an incredible display of leaps of logic, selective information, conjectures assumed to be facts, and poor analogies. It is, IMO, quite intellectually dishonest. Somehow I'm not entirely surprised because Alger often quotes Chomsky, and Chomsky uses similar tactics in his one-sided arguments filled with meticulously researched half-truths and conjectures expanded upon as if they were facts. False equivalencies abound, and while I suppose both Chomsky and Alger mean well, the end result is well-researched but intellectually dishonest arguments.

[Chris Alger]

I think it's safe to presume that the vast majority of Iraqis want Saddam off their backs but don't want to suffer a war to trade one dictator for another, like Saddam for Musharrif or the Shah or a House of Saud. I doubt that John Q. Iraq is so dumb that he thinks that the U.S. intends to "liberate" Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis and the possible detriment of the U.S. (meaning the dominant interests that drive U.S. foreign policy, rather than the enlightened self-interest of the U.S. public). Do you think Iraqis are ignorant of our history of support and material aid to Saddam and other brutal dictatorships in oil-rich countries? When have you ever heard the U.S. saying that it will compromise it's perceived interests because of the wishes of a foreign public? This particular administration has been an outspokenly in favor of "going it alone" in opposition to world public opinion on a host of treaties and issues; the war campaign is an example rather than an exception to this attitude. If the U.S. were even slightly interested in the well-being of Iraqis, it would have done something within the scope of it's legitimate power to do so, such as punish the corporations that violated U.S. law to support Saddam. Instead, it aggressively pursued a sanctions regime that caused the premature deaths of more than a million Iraqis and plans to kill and main hundreds of thousands more in order place our kind of guy on the throne.

The notion that the U.S. is pursuing war against Iraq for the benefit of Iraq is silly and perverse. I note that it has only recently surfaced in places like the Wall Street Journal and other neocon outlets as the latest propaganda line. It has likely emerged because other attempts to rationalize the war haven't fared well.

[Chris Alger]

"It presumes that Saddam poses no WMD threat now or in the near future (either by himself or by terrorist group proxy)."

It presumes nothing of the sort and in fact I believe that Saddam is a WMD threat, just like Pakistan and Israel, but that this isn't driving the push for war. We know this because the U.S. unabashedly supported Saddam while he was not only building but actively using WMD, just as it is with other countries.

"The word "control" over resources is used broadly, conveniently ignoring the fact that the West PAYS for the oil, and that the countries which receive our dollars are damn glad to get the currency in exchange for an abundant resource they can only use a limited amount of themselves."

I'm not ignoring the fact that the U.S. pays for the oil, you're ignoring what these countries tend to do with these dollars once they're paid. They invest them in with the transnational finacial institutions and buy arms and big ticket infrastructure projects from transnational corporations. These same institutions fund a huge portion of the campaigns of U.S. elected officials, and the think tanks and media that promote the war. What's more intellectually dishonest: this description of how real power works on a day-to-day basis, or the impression you're promoting that Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz lie awake at night worrying about whether Iraqis live in a democracy?

As for Kuwait, Saddam indeed seized the oil fields and torched them. He was driven out in a matter of months after a few days' fighting and his ability to do anything similar again has been largely curtailed, assuming he is that self-destructive. Now, tell me what bad things happened as a result that could justify 500,000 more casualties.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not suggesting the US is pursuing war with Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis and to our detriment. But it doesn't have to be either/or, does it? Getting rid of Saddam should benefit the Iraqis, enhance stability in the region, ensure access to markets for the oil (to their benefit as well as ours), and forestall or eliminate Iraq's WMD programs and the chances of these weapons getting into al-Qaeda's hands.

Once we get past the probably bloody initial process, there are pretty good chances (though not ironclad) that it will benefit almost everyone. The average Iraqi is dirt-poor despite Saddam's immense wealth and massive military spending. All Iraqis live in mortal fear of the regime. So as long as we handle the reconstruction well (and that's a significant and perhaps pivotal point), I really think this canbe a win-win situation for most people. Casualties will occur, but...so will murders, rapes and tortures if Saddam stays in power...and over a much longer period of time. So I really think that on balance, deposing Saddam is both a moral and pragmatic thing to do--it's kind of nice to see both aspects in greater convergence here than has sometimes been the case.

[MMMMMM]

The reason I said it presumes Saddam poses no WMD threat is because of your "kudos to Friedman for at least stating the obvious instead of the usual propaganda about averting terrorism."

I'm really not trying to promote the notion that Bush's first concern is the Iraqi people: I see a convergence of interests, including those of the Iraqi people.

I wasn't addressing the concept of "how real power works"--we can't necessarily control what oil-rich countries do with their oil revenues--but $ moving into those countries have at least some chance of benefitting their people. After all, they can't drink the oil.

I really don't think the 500,000 figure (of potential casualties) is the only, or even necessarily even the most, important aspect of this equation. What about the right to live free from fear of abduction, torture and murder by your own government? What about the numbers of Iraqis that will be murdered and tortured and kept in poverty for years to come, courtesy of Saddam and the two brutes he has for sons? How do you put a number on such oppression and suffering, inflicted on the populace, over many years? If I lived under those conditions, I'd surely want to take my chances of being one of the casualties if that gave me a shot at freedom and a better life under a better government. Again, I'm not saying this is Bush's foremost concern--nor should it be. I'm just saying that it appears that here could be a legitimate convergence of the interests of the Iraqi people and the West, and that the anti-war protesters seem to be completely ignoring this possibility (actually I think it's more a likelihood than a possibility).

[IrishHand]

Yeah...I'm sure the average Iraqi will be so much better off once we impose our will on how their nation is run. The Afghanis are certainly overjoyed with how much nicer things are now that the warlords are running things rather than...umm...the warlords running things. Sort of funny, don't you think, how little interest we have in that country now that the oil pipeline is back in business and we've firmly established our "right" to be in the country militarily.

There's nothing "quid pro quo" about the exchange that's about to take place. The average Iraqi will remain dirt-poor. The only people who will benefit will be whoever we jack into power there, a handful of Iraqis connected to the oil industry and large numbers of already wealthy American individuals and corporations. It's a domestic "quid pro quo" which has little to nothing to do with it's effect on the Iraqis. I'm sure that'll give us nice fodder for the media, but the reality is that we're dumping astronomical sums of money into our military efforts there in exchange for the expectation of huge profits in the long run.

The North Koreans are surely overjoyed that their lack of natural resources places them near the bottom of the 'evil doer' list despite the fact that they're probably the most powerful among them. (We're assuming Bush isn't daft enough to put the Chinese on that list.)

[IrishHand]

Your endless monologues about the horrible oppressions suffered by the Iraqis are well-intentioned, but fail to prove what you think they prove. What percentage of Iraqis do you you think get abducted, tortured, murdered, raped, etc? A very small one. I agree that the average Iraqi probably isn't too thrilled about the current government, but it's not as though they've had a government in his lifetime that was any better - and it's clear that the US interests have little to do with his day-to-day life anyway.

Nazi Germany was arguably the most oppressive government in modern history, and yet they enjoyed a disproportionate level of popularity. It's completely false to assert that simply because a government does some horrible things (depriving people of civil rights and liberties which lead to tons of abductions and murders, for example) it isn't popular with the people. People living in horrible conditions are generally eager to latch onto any person or group who promises them something better. Castro's a bit of a moron, but he's very popular in Cuba as well...

[Chris Alger]

"Getting rid of Saddam should benefit the Iraqis, enhance stability in the region, ensure access to markets for the oil (to their benefit as well as ours), and forestall or eliminate Iraq's WMD programs and the chances of these weapons getting into al-Qaeda's hands."

1. Benefit to Iraqis: Prior U.S. support and material assistance from the U.S. and U.S. corporations didn't "benefit the Iraqis," so why should we presume that U.S. support for whoever replaces him will? Why should we assume that a U.S.-imposed leadership in Iraq will deviate from the pattern of other U.S. clients (like Saddam) using oil revenues to maintain themsevles in power by using them for arms and internal security and doling out favors to powerful cronies? In other words, what forces will check the U.S.'s historical propensity to do this? Certainly not unconditional support for U.S. policy.

2. Enhance stability in the region. You mean our kind of stability. This is just an empty media phrase. A truly democratic Iraq would probably more tumultuous and unpredictable than Saddam. A major cause of instabilty is the active opposition to U.S. involvement in the region and the client states we support, and there's no consideration being given to rethinking these policies.

3. Ensure access to markets for the oil. The only reason Iraq doesn't have a market for it's oil is that the U.S. has refused to provide one, which in turn is caused by the inability of the U.S. to exercise the same control over Iraq that it does to other states in the region.

4. Weapons to al-Qaeda. Where's the beef?

5. WMD. This is naive. Israel is the most faithful ally of the U.S. in the region and it has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the region combined, with the possible exception of Pakistan, another case of a faithful U.S. ally more than willing to wave the nuclear sword to further its interests.

[MMMMMM]

What a cynical attitude.

Let me assure you, ANY will imposed on how the Iraqi nation is run would be better than that of the monster they've got running things now, who imposes HIS will on everyone and everything on pain of torture and death.

Your assumption (which assumption you share with many others), that this is a war about oil rather than about WMD and the threat to US citizens, may be way off--just a thought, though you sound like you have your mind made up already largely on the basis of speculation. Quite frankly, it's a reasonable speculation--but so is the opposite--and without a lot of specific knowledge which neither of us has access to, it's a stupid presumption if you think can be anywhere near to being sure that you're right on this. My own guess is that it's BOTH--but maybe you know better.

North Korea perhaps isn't as immediate a threat--or perhaps, Bush just has to do things sequentially--not an unreasonable way to go about things, now is it? Deal with 'em one at a time.

When we get a decent missile shield, one capable of handling with China's 25 or so nukes, depending on China's activities at the time, maybe they will go on that list too--but I doubt it. For one thing they really aren't supporting worldwide terrorism the way Iran is. Their totalitarian activities are mostly internal.

[MMMMMM]

Irish Hand: "It's completely false to assert that simply because a government does some horrible things (depriving people of civil rights and liberties which lead to tons of abductions and murders, for example) it isn't popular with the people."

No kidding--but I DON'T assert that, and that's not why I'm saying the Iraqi regime isn't popular with the people. Even the liberal TIME magazine described the Iraqi regime as being unpopular--the Baath party represents only 1/3 of the population--vast swaths of the population want Saddam out but are powerless--the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the South--the Shiites comprise about 60% of the Iraqi population...

[MMMMMM]

Well it's hard to imagine how anyone could be worse for the Iraqis than Saddam--and what he does to his own people is truly disgusting. So any change ought to be for the better.

Weapons to al-Qaeda: Documented suspicious activities and contacts aren't enough? Public statements of intent aren't enough? Saddam and al-Qaeda both calling for jihad against the USA and Israel isn't indicative? Waiting for absolute proof? How utterly naive. Get real.

[rounder]

[mattyou]

[andyfox]

Iraq denies it has WMD. The UN has not found any. The US claims it has evidence, but won't give it to the UN. Conservatives who were war hawks in other situations, such as Kissinger and Brzezinksi have publicly doubted the reasons the administration has given for the potential war.

Meanwhile, North Korea has basically stated it will produce nuclear weapons and if the UN does anything about it, it will consider it an act of war. Our reaction has been to try to preserve peace.

Disregarding whether one thinks our reactions to Iraq or North Korea are correct or not, how could one not conclude that oil is not part of the equation?

[Martin Aigner]

"Well what about what most of the Iraqi people want? Does that count, or are you just presuming they don't want Saddam deposed?"

So you say that it´s for humanitary reason the USA wants war against Iraq? C´mon, I think you can do it better. OK, I admit that the people of Iraq suffer from Saddams dictatorship, but that simply is not the reason why Bush (and parts of the west) wants the war.

IMHO the Iraqis are poor people because of the dictatorship of Hussein, anyway, there are many other folks on earth who are just as poor because of dictatorship, too. And furthermore, there are even way poorer poeple on earth than Iraqis. You can see people, dying from hunger in 3rd world every day. Millions of children could be saved, but the west wouln´t help them in a serious way. (Not only from starving. Most of the illnesses in the 3rd world can be heald easily by western standart. Anyway, it seems we all don´t care about them)

C´mon, humanity isn´t the reason for war against Iraq. You know that. We all do.

Martin Aigner

[IrishHand]

Be serious now - do you realize how arrogant and ignorant your first paragraph was?

Let me assure you, ANY will imposed on how the Iraqi nation is run would be better than that of the monster they've got running things now, who imposes HIS will on everyone and everything on pain of torture and death.
I'm happy you have such an intimate knowledge of life in Iraq. It's truly amazing to me that someone living on US soil who's sole source of information about Iraq is western media could have such a deep understanding of people's lives in a vastly different country. In all seriousness, you're basically saying that Hussein is the worst possible leader the Iraqis could possibly have. That's ridiculous, as I'm sure you have to understand. There are countries in far more dire straights economically, socially and morally than Iraq - they just don't happen to be sitting on a vast supply of black gold.

North Korea perhaps isn't as immediate a threat
Ah...that's right. I forgot that Iraq was on the verge of attacking the US. Of course, the reality is that neither of them is a "threat" to us, per se. We just like to throw our weight around internationally - much to the dismay of the rest of the world.

When we get a decent missile shield, one capable of handling with China's 25 or so nukes
Again, I'm thrilled that your knowledge of other countries is so amazing. I once considered travelling to China to count their nukes, but decided instead to go to a Vegas for the weekend. Seriously - our "missile shield" program is easily the single largest waste of money that our military has encouraged in at least 20 years. The most perfect "missile shield" program in the world wouldn't stop a nuke-laden cargo ship from parking at NY or LA and starting some fireworks - to say nothing of the option of transporting the nuke onto an 18-wheeler and driving it wherever you want for the light display.

Conventional warfare against the US is a thing of the past. It's been over 100 years since anyone or anything attacked the US on continental US soil. It's not going to happen in the next 100 years - the military disparity is simply too great. If you're 5'3", a buck-twenty-five, you don't walk over to a 1990 Mike Tyson's house to start a fight because you don't like his foreign policy.

[IrishHand]

I've been called a sociopath before, but never a psycho. Oh wait...I ignore labels from those who don't actually know what they mean. Nevermind. Oh...and I used to live in California - doesn't mean that I am California. You really should look into your mental challenges. E-mail me and I'd be happy to recommend a good therapist.

1.They both have ridiculous rantings with M.
2.They both advocate the USA is a terrorist nation.
3. They both advocate a Zionist conpiracy to rule the World.
4. They both claim to have gone to law school.
5. They both have no respect for the law.
6. They both have put forth that the USA deserved 9-11.
7. They both think that Arafat is a freedom fighter and not the bloody, murdering terrorist that he is.

1. I also argue with my mother. Does this mean I have an Oedipal complex?
2. Using any reasonable definition of terrorism, the US is a terrorist nation. We just don't like that because it pierces our "holier than thou" delusions.
3. I've never used the word "Zionist" either in a post or in conversation. Nice try to continue harping on my anti-semitism despite the fact that I've never once discussed the Jewish faith or peoples. I restrict my discussion to government policies. The fact that you apparently think that "Israel" is a synonym for "all Jews" or "Zionist conspiracy" reveals a shocking streak of ignorance and/or anti-semitism on your part, bud.
4. I certainly did - thanks for recognizing that.
5. Kind of tough to reconcile that with my past time as an associate district attorney, don't you think?
6. Yet another creation of your defective mind. The only person harping about anti-semitism or any shameful declaration that thousands of civilians deserved to die is you. You might want to think about that before you go labelling others.
7. Again, you clearly don't bother to read anything I write. I've argued consistently that the Sharon and Arafat are both terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

Saddam is literally on a par with Stalin...just on a smaller scale (if you don't know that you don't know much about Iraq or Saddam). Stalin is his avowed hero and he has practiced Stalin's methods with gusto for many years. He even keeps a bookshelf filled with Stalin's writings by his bedside. He ruthlessly murders anyone he sees as political threats--and their extended families as well. Torture, kidnapping and rape are tools his regime uses to keep people in line. Are you really trying to argue that a replacement wouldn't almost surely better--even any random replacement?

You spout liberal opinions about the missile shield like you know what you're talking about...but you don't. The purpose of a missile shield is not to intercept or preclude every form of attack or even every missile...it is to limit the damage we take. The cost of the missile shields is estimated to run 10-20 billion (as of 6 months ago). The cost of the 9/11 attack is estimated between 100-300 billion, which is 10 to 15 times more than the missile shield now in development. Now: one single nuke obliterating an entire major city would cost us far, far more than 9/11. Therefore if the missile shield prevents EVEN ONE NUKE from striking one city it pays for itself many times over--it's not even close, and that also doesn't even consider the prevention of human suffering. Just in pure financial terms the missile shield will be a bargain and a relatively cheap insurance policy.

By the way, North Korea is working on developing ICBMs capable of reaching the USA--they already have a hundred 780-mile range missiles, and they definitely will have the ICBMs. If they take their two old reactors out of mothballs, within a year they could be producing over one nuclear bomb PER WEEK.

North Korea is probably too rational to attack the USA directly--as was the former USSR. But the same cannot be said with nearly the same degree of confidence for certain regimes in the Middle East, should they acquire nukes (possibly soon from the DPRK). Obviously, the self-preservation/rationality argument does not apply to known terrorist groups.

[MMMMMM]

Oil probably is part of the equation, but it's wrong to assert it is the only part, or to presume that the WMD threat from Iraq (WMD's to terrorists) is imaginary.

For another thing, the Iraq buildup was well under way when North Korea sprung this on the world--what is Bush to do, take all the forces we just sent to the Middle East and move them towards the Korean peninsula? One thing at a time.

I agree that North Korea may well pose more of a threat. Hopefully their government will respond rationally to increasing pressure in the months ahead. They may not, because Kim Jong-il probably figures he's next after Saddam--and he's probably right, too--regardless of whether he goes ahead with his nuke program. What he should be thinking is that if he just stopped selling arms and arms technology to terrorists and to regimes like Iraq, he wouldn't even be on the list at all. That's the main reason he made the "Axis of Evil" list in the first place.

[MMMMMM]

For the third time in this thread, that isn't the point. The Bush administration's actions DON'T HAVE TO BE FOR PRIMARILY HUMANITARIAN REASONS TO STILL BE GOOD FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE.

What's wrong with this as a list of reasons, possibly in this order: 1) preventing WMD from getting into the hands of terrorists or regimes which would use them us or our allies, 2)`ensuring that a destructive tyrant isn't in a psition to blackmail the world by tthreatening to torch (again--or even worse) the region's oilfields, 3) giving the Iraqi people a chance at a better government, one not run by an incarnation of Stalin himself

Can't all three of those reasons work together? Why does everybody malign the USA for not having the interests of the Iraqis as the first reason? Aen't we supposed to defend ourselves and our allies from attacks? Al-Qaeda has made it clear that they intend to find a way to nuke us or use biological WMD against us. Well Iraq is a likely supplier of such things. Both Iraq and al-Qaeda have called for jihad against the USA. We're acting in self-defense against an openly stated threat. Regime change probably help the Iraqi people too.

Once again, the Iraqi people don't have to be our first ptriority in order to still benefit from regime change. I don't see why this seems difficult to grasp, and I don't think it's fair to malign the USA for putting our own interests first when under threat or attack. Our Constitution makes it clear we have the right to defend ourselves. Saddam and al-Qaeda made a big mistake when they called for jihad against us.

[IrishHand]

Are you really trying to argue that a replacement wouldn't almost surely better--even any random replacement?
Glad to see you've retracted your stance from the ridiculous "anyone would be better" to "a random person would be better". Progress is better than nothing, I suppose.

You spout liberal opinions about the missile shield like you know what you're talking about...but you don't.
The source of my "liberal opinions" are people working on the project. Your source is apparently the media. I have no concerns whatsoever about which one is the more reliable authority. Of course, my primary objection to many of your views is that they're the by-product of an inability to look beyond the picture painted by our government and/or our media, so I shouldn't be surprised.

By the way, North Korea is working on developing ICBMs capable of reaching the USA
So? We've already paved the way for this one - as we do in nearly every military area. It's pure folly to think that eventually every other country with a military research program won't eventually have the technologies we have. It's only a question of time. In this regard, it only makes sense that your position will be that in order for the US to remain safe, we'll have to intervene with every nation that fails to bend to our every whim.

[MMMMMM]

I thought it was obvious that "anyone would be better" was meant to be taken almost literally--and actually, I can't think of anyone who would be worse, so the statement is pretty accurate even taken literally. Sorry if this went over your head somehow. I'll try to be 100% precise in the future.

Undoubtedly some people working on the project have their own overall opinions--but their opinions don't change the specific facts--and you've offered nothing to counter my financial cost/benefit argument regarding the missile shield. All you've done is repeat yourself and claimed a "higher" source of opinion. By the way, I'll bet I find out more on the internet about many such things than you find out about them in the military--and it isn't all from "the media."

We don't require that every nation "bend to our every whim" and it's disingenous of you to imply that we do. Requiring non-proliferation amongst nations which threaten us or have totalitarian governments is another matter however. I'm disappointed in you for not discerning, or for deliberately mischaracterizing, our stance on such matters.

No offense but maybe you should reconsider whether the US military is really the best career choice for you. I wouldn't want to work for any employer with whom I had so many differences of opinion as you seem to have with the US Government--especially not in a military capacity. If you don't agree with the war on Iraq how will you morally justify going over there if you are sent? And couldn't your performance be impacted somehow? If you have so many feelings against our international and military policies, well fine, you're entitled to have them, but why would you choose to work for such an employer, and in such a capacity? Just a few thoughts--it's your business--I just know I could never reconcile it if I were in your shoes and holding your beliefs. In fact I once (many years ago) believed I would truly be a Conscientious Objector to ANY war--for any reason--but as time went on and I learned more about the world, I realized that such views are fatally flawed by virtue of their impracticality. Ideals are nice but worthless if they can't be fit in with the real world somehow.

[Chris Alger]

It's easy to picture Iraq ending up with someone who's no better who hardly justifies the ravages of war. Mobutu, Suharto, Somoza, Duvalier, Pinochet, Deim and the Argentinain generals are but a few of the horses the U.S. has backed to further its interests to the widespread detriment and rage of the people they ruled. (BTW, these murderous tyrants were heros to the same crowd now busy denouncing Saddam's murder and tyranny). What is naive is to assume, especially in light of the records of regimes like these, is that the interests that dominate U.S. foreign policy coincide with the interests of the people whom U.S. foreign policy dominates.

What will happen is this: the U.S. will fund and back a governing coalition of Iraqi dissidents and demand certain concessions favorable to the U.S. government and the international industrial and financial sectors (e.g., permanent military bases, IMF-style austerity). The rulers will be installed and later elected but real power will reside in the military working in concert with private institutions, which will be wholly beholden to the U.S. The military will wait in the wings to ensure that whoever governs will generally fulfill the interests of U.S. policy instead of what Iraqis want. We won't make the same mistake with made with Iran in letting Iraq's military slip from our control. There won't be any real democracy or prospertiy except for an urban elite, and Iraqis left out of this process will be furious and vindicitve for generations, which we will blame on "militant" or "fundamentalist" Islamicism. Our press will characterize this situation as a triumph for freedom and democracy.

And that's the likely best case. Another is that the U.S. will get bogged down in seemingly irreconcilable conflicts between various ethnic, religous and political factions, civil society will collapse, refugees and trauma everwhere, and we'll complain on the sidelines or walk away altogether as Iraq plunges into a dark age for a generation or more, as happened after our intervantion in Afghanistan and Israel's intervention in Lebanon. What we know for sure is this: the U.S. will not spend 100 billion dollars and thousands of lives on a war just to leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

We need to face up to these prospects and demand an accounting by our own government of its actual motives and intentions instead of passively accepting the rosy rhetoric of war propaganda. The real war debate should have little to do with a dispute over whether Saddam is a murdering tyrant or a regional threat. He's both, but his "badness" and abstract notions of freedom and democracy have nothing do to with the concrete forces that drive and benefit from U.S. foreign policy, especially in this region.

[MMMMMM]

The scenarios you mention may be possible, as well as others--we can't have a crystal ball, unfortunately. There's no guarantee at all that it won't be a royal mess for years to come. However it's already horrible for the Iraqis so taking such a chance seems not unreasonable in that light. Also, it is simply unacceptable to have a Saddam-led Iraq working on WMD--and any claims that he isn't have no support at all, given his long history--we can't have a Saddam providing al-Qaeda with biological weapons. That's the bottom line. And given his history and his rhetoric, and given al-Qaeda's actions and stated intentions, he's simply got to go.

On a related note, Hizbollah's top leader recently announced that they would be expanding the war against Israel to the United States as well--he intends to attack us on our soil, and minces no words about it. And Hizbollah is considered by some experts to be more highly trained and better organized, more of a potential threat, than even al-Qaeda. Best solution to this emerging problem, IMO: after Iraq is under control, initiate a surprise mission to drop a slew of Daisy Cutters on all the Hizbollah training camps. Nasrallah (sp?) came right out and announced war and attacks on the USA: fine, we ought to take him at his word. Bye-bye Hizbollah.

[IrishHand]

I can't think of anyone who would be worse
I'll refer you to Mr. Alger's nominations, which adequately express my objection to your train of thought.

I'll bet I find out more on the internet about many such things than you find out about them in the military--and it isn't all from "the media."
You're entitled to your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to it. Feel free to continue thinking that the missile shield program is a great one for America - there are a few wealthy industrialists who appreciate your support. The rest of us understand it's a collosal waste of money and resources.

amongst nations which threaten us
How again was Afghanistan threatening us? Or Iraq? Or the other evil doers? I'm all for hunting down terrorists and slaughtering them wholesale, but reshaping entire countries so that they'll fall in line with our foreign policy is another matter entirely.

No offense but maybe you should reconsider whether the US military is really the best career choice for you.
I love my career, and as far as I can discern from my fellow officers and my fitreps, my career loves me too.

If you don't agree with the war on Iraq how will you morally justify going over there if you are sent?
I swore an oath. That may not mean much to many people, but I view it as a binding commitment. I'm assuming you fall into the same group as the peanut gallery that figures it's impossible to be a good soldier but also maintain the capacity for critical, independant thought?

And couldn't your performance be impacted somehow?
It could if I was 1/2 as weak-willed as you seem to think I am. When my mission is to obliterate a target, that target's going to be obliterated. You need to realize...combat isn't the same as normal life where we have the luxuries of discussing and debating mattes. In combat, you are given missions and you do them to the best of your ability.

If you have so many feelings against our international and military policies, well fine, you're entitled to have them, but why would you choose to work for such an employer, and in such a capacity?
I love my country. My family has always believed that it's important to devote a portion of your life to the service of your nation in some form or another. My mental makeup and skillset makes me very well suited to the position I hold in the military, and I would serve regardless of what I thought of the current government. Vietnam is an easy example - it was a horrible idea politically, morally, economically, etc. Despite that, I'd have enlisted immediately and fough to the utmost of my ability. Again - there's nothing amazing about being able to think but also having an uncompromising desire to serve your country. Call it nationalism, or anything else you want - it's how I've always lived my life.

In fact I once (many years ago) believed I would truly be a Conscientious Objector to ANY war
You'd probably get along well with my best friend then - he's one of this country's leading anti-war advocates. Of course, as my current career choice might suggest, I spend far more time arguing with him than I do attending his rallies. *sigh*

[MMMMMM]

The despots Alger listed are not worse than Saddam--he is fully on a par with some, and worse than others.

You still haven't countered the simple financial cost/benefits argument I outlined which greatly favors the missile shield--and I doubt you will, because you can't--and neither can anyone else. All you (and they) can do, apparently, is reiterate your point of view and claim that people "understand" something. Just ignore the argument: why should facts and numbers matter to you, when you know already that it's a net waste?

If as you say you are in support of hunting down terrorists, then you are in support of efforts to hunt down al-Qaeda and the Taliban, aren't you? And, didn't it make sense for that hunt to begin in Afghanistan--their headquarters? And by the way, we DIDN'T reshape Afghanistan to fall in line with our policies...although arguably perhaps we should have.

[IrishHand]

Since you're obsessed with your magical cost/benefit analysis, I'll address it. I was trying to ignore it because it makes zero sense...

"The purpose of a missile shield is not to intercept or preclude every form of attack or even every missile...it is to limit the damage we take. The cost of the missile shields is estimated to run 10-20 billion (as of 6 months ago). The cost of the 9/11 attack is estimated between 100-300 billion, which is 10 to 15 times more than the missile shield now in development. Now: one single nuke obliterating an entire major city would cost us far, far more than 9/11. Therefore if the missile shield prevents EVEN ONE NUKE from striking one city it pays for itself many times over--it's not even close, and that also doesn't even consider the prevention of human suffering. Just in pure financial terms the missile shield will be a bargain and a relatively cheap insurance policy."

Cost of missile shield development - I'll accept that it's currently estimated at 10-20 billion.
Cost of 9/11 - 100-300 billion. That's utterly laughable. I assume that estimate is from one of the genuises who decided to count not only the cost of the buildings, planes, rescue and cleanup operations (the real cost) but also some imaginary "effect on the economy" and other related effects. Our legal system would never allow that perspective, and neither do I. The 9//11 attacks killed a few thousand people, wrecked 4 big planes, 2 huge buildings and everything nearby. You want me to think that's worth 100-300 billion? However, as the next paragraph explains, I will happilly agree that 9/11 "costed" 300 billion.

At any rate - the 9/11 costs are completely irrelevant. The "missile shield" wouldn't have done a thing to stop 9/11. Unless of course you were hoping for a gross malfunciton on that day where instead of looking for incoming missiles to intercept, it decided to shoot down every aircraft in the sky.

Futhermore, your logic is also highly flawed in the extrapolative sense. You say that if the program prevented EVEN ONE NUKE (your caps, not mine), it would pay for itself many times over. I would argue the opposite - unless it's capable of stopping EVERY SINGLE NUKE (my caps, not yours), it's worthless. Using your apparent nightmares, if North Korea launched 4 ICBMs with nuclear warheads at Los Angeles, and the missile shiled stopped 3 of the 4, it will have accomplished essentially nothing. The moment one hits a big urban area, you're looking at costs which can't begin to be estimated. I have no idea how that equates to a "cheap" insurance policy, unless by "cheap" you mean one that doesn't pay off at the end.

Of course, more the point is my first counter-argument in addition to a point I raised earlier. The best missile shield in the world wouldn't have stopped 9/11, nor would it stop a cargo ship with a nuclear warhead below decks from docking at LA harbor and turning Hollywood into a real light show. Our big threats now, as even our government recognizes, isn't from other militaries. It's from individuals and groups, and they couldn't care less about your missile shield.

[MMMMMM]

I think you just agreed with me without realizing it.

The reason I quoted 100-300 billion for the cost of 9/11 is that that's the number which was widely thrown about in the newspapers. But it doesn't really matter precisely what it is--let's take the lower figure of 100 billion--the reason I mentined this figure is because the cost of a nuke hitting a city would be far, far more than that--as you said, it would be virtually incalculable. Yet if the DPRK launched 4 nukes at us and we intercepted 3, we will have accomplished "a great deal", not "nothing" as you put it. We would suffer a lot indeed, losing one of our cities to a nuke...but it wouldn't be the complete end of us all and the complete end of our country. We would recover eventually somehow. But multiple strikes on many cities could be another story. So a missile shield which can intercept all, or all but one, nuke launched by a rogue state would be a great thing to have. Obviously it wouldn't be able to intercept the entire arsenal of Russia. But that's not the emerging threat--the emerging threat is a rogue state which might threaten us with a just a few. Being able to shoot most or all of those down is a huge asset, and saving even just one city would save us far more than the 10-20 billion in development costs.

I do agree with you that the threats are developing from many sources, not just rogue states, and that threats from individuals and groups are increasing. In fact, a rogue state might at some point decide to sell al-Qaeda itself a few nukes...and maybe a couple mobile launchers so they could hit Israel or southern Europe. Threats from bioweapons smuggled into the US may become reality at some point too. But all this just means that the best approach is to defend against these multiple threats as best we can...from all directions...and try to limit the damage in case a threat gets through. We can't just say since we can't stop all threats, we won't try to stop any. If that were the case then why patrol borders, why search luggage on airplanes? Indeed, then why do anything? We have to defend as best we can, while simultaneously hunting down the terrorists and leaning on their sponsors to stop sponsoring.

A missile shield also may allow us to defend our allies from such missile attacks...which is actually the more likely scenario. It is a highly cost-effective (in relative terms, vis-a-vis the cost of losing an entire city) prophylactic against certain threats. It would also give us more strength against certain types of nuclear blackmail which may otherwise occur in troubled regions. And as cult-like and loony as North Korea seems to be, it would make me feel a bit better if we have it when Kim Jong-il gets those ICBMs fully developed and operational.

Well I'm not too rich to work like Ray Zee is, so it's high time to go play poker. Later;-) M

[andyfox]

I know you didn't say it, but just for the record: I do not think oil is the entire equation, and I do not think that the WMD threat from Iraq is imaginary.

"the Iraq buildup was well under way when North Korea sprung this on the world--what is Bush to do, take all the forces we just sent to the Middle East and move them towards the Korean peninsula? One thing at a time."

I agree. What will the administation do if we begin a war in Iraq and N. Korea attacks S. Korea right at that time?

My hope is that all the bluster from the administration is intended to arouse the Iraqi military to threaten Saddam with a coup and to convince them to convince him to abdicate power and take up refuge in Libya or Mars. If this is the secret plan behind the war (so far) of words, and it succeeds, I'd be the first to congratulate the administration and Bush would be reelected (and should be) in a landslide.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, the reason for my first paragraph was because Chris Alger said it or at least implied it--I know you didn't say it.

North Korea might attack South Korea right after we attack Iraq, just as you describe. Quite a nasty scenario.

Arab leaders are currently, behind the scenes, trying to convince Saddam to step down and take the "exile" option. We'll just have to wait and see.

[IrishHand]

I guess we just look at the matter differently - I have a tough time differentiating between all nukes being shot at the US hitting and only a percentage of them in terms of value.

And didn't you say that North Korea was going to be making a nuke a month? I threw out the "4 nukes shot at us" to illustrate that the shield would need to take them all down to be effective. To me, it only makes sense that if a country has the ability to create ICBMs then they will send enough to ensure widespread destruction. Your response basically seems to indicate that so long as we only get one nuclear hit on a US city, we'd be able to recover. What about if N. Korea saved up for a year, then launched a dozen? What about when 3 hit? Or 4? Plus, keep in mind that if this takes place, we turn Korea into a nuclear wasteland - which I don't believe we do if there were a magical missile shield capable of taking down everything fired at us.

In the end, only time will tell. Both my position and yours is basically speculation at this point. We can't say for certain how much the missile shield will cost in the end, or how effective it will be. We also don't know how other countries will do developing nuclear weapons or the means to project them onto US soil. Guess we can revisit this one in 20 years or so. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Irish

[MMMMMM]

^

[nicky g]

"The despots Alger listed are not worse than Saddam--he is fully on a par with some, and worse than others. "

This is a very sterile argument to get into, but I still thought this was worth repeating: Suharto had approxiamately 2 million people killed, on the grounds that they were "leftists". I think if you are ranking despots, he probably beats Saddam.

[MMMMMM]

If that's taken as the only or primary measure of despotism, I won't disagree with you. However, sometimes conditions also influence how many are slaughtered. I suspect that Saddam is fully on a par with Stalin and Hitler as far as having the psychological and ideological predisposition to such things--but the conditions are somewhat different for him. Given different conditions, I don't much doubt that he would be fully as capable of butchery on a much larger scale.

[nicky g]

yeah, perhaps. i'd say though that we're ultimately defined by our actions and not by our intentions or potentials.

[MMMMMM]

Well...yes and no...I agree we're defined in large part by our actions, but is, for instance, a serial killer who "only" tortures and kills 15 any "better" than one who tortures and kills 30? Saddam's evil actions have been realized to a large extent (it's not like we're condemning him on his potential) and if his death count is less than it is for a few others it is probably just due to lack of opportunity. I doubt if Stalin was any more ruthless than Saddam; Stalin just had more opportunity to inflict widespread devastation--the external conditions were different.

[MMMMMM]

In other words if there was a different type of action, I would agree with you completely. But a mere difference in scale is probably attributable to a difference in external conditions or opportuntites. For instance, a career hitman (a murderer-for-hire) is a career hitman whether he kills 20 for profit or 40.

[IrishHand]

While Hussein's idol may be Stalin (don't know myself - never talked to the man), that doesn't mean he's even in the same league. Hitler and Stalin are in a class of their own. Hussein's not even close in scope or scale...

[MMMMMM]

In methodology Saddam is essentially the same as Stalin.

The limitations of the argument that Suharto killed more than Saddam, and is therefore more of a despot than Saddam, can perhaps be best shown thus: Hitler murdered 6 million, but Stalin murdered 20 million. Does this make Stalin far more of a despot than Hitler?

[IrishHand]

Yes.

[MMMMMM]

I'd say yes in some ways and no in others.

I think this is getting a little away from the initial point of disagreement, which was whether anyone (or virtually anyone) would be preferable over Saddam. Just because Suharto may have killed more people in his surroundings, under those conditions, doesn't mean that he necessarily would have killed as many or more in Saddam's shoes...or vice versa. Hence the character of the man and his methodologies do have bearing here (if a despot is willing and able to kill, say, 25% of all the people in his own country, then just because he kills more or less than the next despot doesn't necessarily mean he would kill the same number if he switched places with the despot--after all, he may just have less (or more) people in his own country--or have more or less people he can butcher easily).