A War Policy in Collapse

[Chris Alger]

I still think war in the next month is likely, but no longer inevitable. At the beginning of the campaign last summer, it seemed like the traditional foreign policy establishment, the power articulated by spokespersons like Baker, Kissinger, Scowcroft and Brzezinski -- indicated its willingness to go along with the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz plan to sack Saddam, provided they obtain a modicum of international support. Until last week, Powell confident that China and Russia would abstain and France could be threatened with isolation, and that enough other votes could be purchased.

The U.S. is now looking at 3 vetos, the Brits retreating, Turkey in outright mutiny and Ariel Sharon, his madman's political acumen unabated, commencing Operation Manslaughter in the Gaza Strip, as if to prove how little Bush cares for democracy, human rights, or UN resolutions when they interefere with US power. Bush's popularity rating is now lower than at any time since before 9/11. While most people swallow the line about Saddam being a threat, they don't trust Bush to lead us into war alone. And now Blix has announced that Iraq has met the only deadline its been given and that the inspections progress -- unwelcome and hated by the White House -- continues in fits and starts. Even centrist wimps like Daschle are condemning unilateralism.

Two other signs from the war camp: (1) the hardcores that remain lashed to the mast are becoming more shrill and strident -- witness John Warner on Lehrer tonight and Bush's constant references to 9/11 in his press conference, even though the smart conservatives have been telling him to stop embarrassing himself -- as if they knew they were cornered and running out of ammo; and (2) the more reserved, quasi-objective types that would be falling over themselves praising Bush if everything were going well are now highlighting the risks of unilateral war, still mostly blaming the Europeans, but with an unsubtle subtext that Bush's people have failed to rise to the occasion. This is what you see when they see the need for daylight between themselves and what might prove to be bad policy.

To make predictions harder, there's a good no-war exit strategy that Bush could adopt of he weren't so dependent on advisors that he knows are smarter than he is: indefinitely postpone the invasion, leave some units in place, claim that his threat of force has resulted in disarmament, but blame Europe, the democrats and the peaceniks for all the terrorism and unrest emanating from the Middle East during the next few years. After all, boogey-man propaganda strategies tend to work pretty well for a few years and fade into oblivion (Castro, Khomeini, Qaddafi). It's a lot cheaper than conquoring and administering Iraq for 5 years, especially since the last military man with solid experience at operating a U.S. colony was McArthur.

The problem is that about a third of the US public and virtually all of the conservative faithful are chomping at the bit to invade, and will throw themselves crying on their trenches if they think they've been stabbed in the back again.

So I have no idea what's going to happen. Bush might have painted himself into the smallest corner that any President has seen since 1974. If so, it will be particularly embittering to conservatives that sputtered as Clinton slipped out of impeachment even though everyone in the country knew he was a liar. They've lionized his replacement as a monument of moral character, but who's one Big Policy will have failed because everyone in the world knows he's a liar.

James Carroll gave a better voice to some of these thoughts three days ago in the Boston Globe:

A War Policy in Collapse
James Carroll, Boston Globe, 3/4/3
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/06...lapse%2B.shtml

WHAT A DIFFERENCE a month makes. On Feb. 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell made the Bush administration's case against Iraq with a show of authority that moved many officials and pundits out of ambivalence and into acceptance. The war came to seem inevitable, which then prompted millions of people to express their opposition in streets around the globe. Over subsequent weeks, the debate between hawks and doves took on the strident character of ideologues beating each other with fixed positions. The sputtering rage of war opponents and the grandiose abstractions of war advocates both seemed disconnected from the relentless marshaling of troops. War was coming. Further argument was fruitless. The time seemed to have arrived, finally, for a columnist to change the subject.

And then the events of last week. Within a period of a few days, the war policy of the Bush administration suddenly showed signs of incipient collapse. No one of these developments by itself marks the ultimate reversal of fortune for Bush, but taken together, they indicate that the law of ''unintended consequences,'' which famously unravels the best-laid plans of warriors, may apply this time before the war formally begins. Unraveling is underway. Consider what happened as February rolled into March:

<ul type="square"> The presidenTony Blair forcefully criticized George W. Bush for his obstinacy on global environmental issues, a truly odd piece of timing for such criticism from a key ally yet a clear effort to get some distance from Washington. Why now?[/list] <ul type="square"> The President's father chose to give a speech affirming the importance both of multinational cooperation and of realism in dealing with the likes of Saddam Hussein. To say, as the elder Bush did, that getting rid of Hussein in 1991 was not the most important thing is to raise the question of why it has become the absolute now.[/list] <ul type="square"> For the first time since the crisis began, Iraq actually began to disarm, destroying Al Samoud 2 missiles and apparently preparing to bring weapons inspectors into the secret world of anthrax and nerve agents. The Bush administration could have claimed this as a victory on which to mount further pressure toward disarmament.[/list] <ul type="square"> Instead, the confirmed destruction of Iraqi arms prompted Washington to couple its call for disarmament with the old, diplomatically discredited demand for regime change. Even an Iraq purged of weapons of mass destruction would not be enough to avoid war. Predictably, Iraq then asked, in effect, why Hussein should take steps to disarm if his government is doomed in any case? Bush's inconsistency on this point -- disarmament or regime change? -- undermined the early case for war. That it reappears now, obliterating Powell's argument of a month ago, is fatal to the moral integrity of the prowar position.[/list] <ul type="square"> The Russian foreign minister declared his nation's readiness to use its veto in the Security Council to thwart American hopes for a UN ratification of an invasion.[/list] <ul type="square"> Despite Washington's offer of many billions in aid, the Turkish Parliament refused to approve US requests to mount offensive operations from bases in Turkey -- the single largest blow against US war plans yet. This failure of Bush diplomacy, eliminating a second front, might be paid for in American lives.[/list] <ul type="square"> The capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a senior Al Qaeda operative, should have been only good news to the Bush administration, but it highlighted the difference between the pursuit of Sept. 11 culprits and the unrelated war against Iraq. Osama bin Laden, yes. Saddam Hussein, no.[/list] <ul type="square"> Administration officials, contradicting military projections and then refusing in testimony before Congress to estimate costs and postwar troop levels, put on display either the administration's inadequate preparation or its determination, through secrecy, to thwart democratic procedures -- choose one.[/list] <ul type="square"> In other developments, all highlighting Washington's panicky ineptness, the Philippines rejected the help of arriving US combat forces, North Korea apparently prepared to start up plutonium production, and Rumsfeld ordered the actual deployment of missile defense units in California and Alaska, making the absurd (and as of now illegal) claim that further tests are unnecessary.[/list]
All of this points to an administration whose policies are confused and whose implementations are incompetent. The efficiency with which the US military is moving into position for attack is impressive; thousands of uniformed Americans are preparing to carry out the orders of their civilian superiors with diligence and courage. But the hollowness of that civilian leadership, laid bare in the disarray of last week's news, is breathtaking.

That the United States of America should be on the brink of such an ill-conceived, unnecessary war is itself a crime. The hope now is that -- even before the war has officially begun -- its true character is already manifesting itself, which could be enough, at last, to stop it.

[andyfox]

"We intervene to put an end to savagery. We intervene not for conquest, not for aggrandizement; we intervene for humanity's sake; we intervene to gain security for the future; we intervene to aid a people who have suffered every form of tyranny and who have made a desperate struggle to be free. We intervene upon the highest possible ground."

Senator John Spooner, 1898

[Chris Alger]

Great quote. Also remember McKinley's comment about the need to "uplift and Christianize" the Filipinos (about 80% Catholic).

1898, huh?

"The war that erupted [in the Philippines in February 1899] continued for three years ... [U.S. troops] killed outright 15,000 rebels, and estimates run as high as 200,000 Filipinos dying from gunfire, starvation, and the effects of concentration camps into which the United States crowded civilans so that they could not help Aguinaldo's troops." W. LaFeber, The American Age, 1989, p.202

[IrishHand]

One of my concerns about the impending war is this... (Keeping in mind the post-Vietnam attitudes about US casualties - they aren't allowed. The US public can be brought to accept armed conflict, but they don't accept casualties. Gulf War 1 and Afghanistan are perfect examples - massive bombardment followed up by armed clean-up crews - neither having significant casualties. Furthermore, most US casualties in Gulf War 1 were caused by us, not them (training accidents, friendly fire, etc).)

If the situation is as I believe it is, then this is what will likely transpire: Iraq is basically defenseless - we've been bombing their defense and communications infrastructure for years, and have increased those raids recently. If they have hidden caches of chemical or biological weapons, they're either inacessible due to the UN inspections/sanctions or undeliverable in any relevant quantities. We'll declare war, then lay into Iraq with a viscious shore-based, ship-based and air-based bombardment. Our tanks will then roll unopposed across Iraq supported by complete aerial supremacy. If the Iraqi armed forces decide they want to pull a "Fortress Baghdad", then we can surround the place and contined the multi-faceted bombardment, only this time directed at any remotely threatening-looking location within city limits. Invariably, the city collapses and we discover either that Hussein has committed suicide or, more likely, gone the way of bin Laden (missing, presumed dead - which means either that, or that someone captured him and doesn't feel like sharing). We win the big victory, and in the process mutilate Iraq's infrastructure and slaughter thousands of Iraqi civilians (because it's better politically to kill 1000 Iraqis than it is to risk losing 10 US soldiers, so we now always take the "better safe than sorry" route militarily). Of course, all this was easily possible because Iraq was both defenseless and not the proud owner of vast supplies of WMD as our government keeps preaching. (Or course, we'll 'find' mass supplies somewhere, but no reasonable explanation will be given as to why they weren't used - we just need the evidence to justify the invasion.) Basically, we win a war that simply wasn't justified in the manner it was promoted, and we win the war easily because it wasn't justified in the manner it was promoted.

Now, if the situation is as some others believe it is, then this is what will likely transpire: Iraq is a kettle waiting to boil over. They're sitting on vast supplies of WMD, and while they've clearly demonstrated no interest in using them militarily in the past dozen plus years, the promise that a US invasion will end in the death of all Iraqi military leaders changes that equation. These vast supplies of chemical and biological weapons are released either upon initiation of hostilities (opening of the above-mentioned bombardment) in a "use it or lose it" approach, or they're used once US forces march onto Iraqi soil if the delivery methods require this. If possible, WMD are also somehow lobbed into Israel. Either way, no amount of gas masks and protective suits can prevent the inevitable loss of thousands of civilian and US military lives. Of course, this is completely unacceptable to the US nation. Rather than risk the likelihood of continued WMD-style attacks (and - God forbid - more casualties in a wdar) as we complete the invasion/forced regime change, and using the justification that Hussein will surely pull a Hitler and gas Baghdad once we walk through the gates killing thousands of both them and us, we push the button and turn Baghdad into a nuclear wasteland. (Essentially the same rationale as the first two - better hundreds of thousands of them than thousands of us.) Not only does the US now rule over a mutilated country, but it can't even get at much of the oil there for many, many years. I haven't really through through the further consequences of this second option since, as I think I've argued before, I consider it highly unlikely. (Since we're so pathologically opposed to military engagements involving the risk of US casualties, I can't see us sending the troops into an opponent we know both possesses WMD and will use them in a final gesture of defiance.)

Any thoughts?

[brad]

a: im here to see major major

b: im sorry you cant see major major now.

a: but i just saw him come in.

b: yes but you cant see him now.

a: well when can i see him?

b: as soon as he leaves you can go in to see him.

[Chris Alger]

This is a good point because it shows how the assumptions that supposedly justify war actually counsel against it. Although there is some debate about whether war will increase the risk of terrorism by others, there is little discussion about whether war will increase the chance of retalliation by Iraq, even though the certainty that this is likely follows from the assumptions that justify the war.

The conventional argument holds that Iraq has WMD and canot be 'trusted" to refrain from using or disseminating them in the future. As a result, war is necessary to eliminate the threat.

The same argument could have been used in the 1980's to justify a first strike against the Soviet Union. In that case, however, the stakes were so high that the response was obvious: it would be suicide because it would ensure a similar response. Deterrence might fail, but attack would guarantee the result that war was supposed to prevent. Everyone knew that war could not possibly eliminate the threat.

In Iraq's case, war's ability to eliminate the threat, at least after an initial volley against U.S. forces, is generally assumed, and in fact remains unchallenged in virtually all "respectable" discussion. But it's hard to imagine how Saddam could not have a delivery system capable of inflicting WMD on US civilians for many years to come.

For example, one US government disaster scenario posits that two people with small amounts of antrhax and a small airplane could kill 3 million residents of Washington, D.C. Saddam's ability to do the same in the event of war, even after his own demise, should be just as certain as the USSR's ability to retalliate against a US first strike. The Mexican and Canadian borders remain porous. A handful of his agents with few supplies and modest expertise could inflict unprecedented disaster. A legion of highly-trained, well-stocked retalliators could create uncalculable harm. Or Saddam could arrange to funnel any WMD to al Qaeda or some other group -- such as former Iraqi secret police or Republican Guard leaders facing execution if the US invades --and sensibly assume that they will make their way to their intended victims. I saw last week on TV that Saddam supposedly has an untraceable personal fortune of some $30-$40 billion, many times that of bin Laden. In the right hands, these resources could gaurantee unlimited carnage indefinitely.

I have not seen any explanation of how war could preclude this from happening. I'm confident that the reason is that war could not possibly do so. The only counterarguments, which are that Saddam is either unable or not incined to retalliate, obviously undermine the basic arguments for war.

It seems that either one of two things are true: (1) Iraq's WMD threat to the U.S. has been so grossly exaggerated as to be minimal even when Iraq is presented with the maximum case for unleashing them; or (2) those US officials that desire war accept the chance of a WMD retalliation as a worthwhile price.

If the latter, perhaps they are right. The absence of widespread media emphasis on this obvious risk, however, helps explain why the American public (while opposed in the majority to unilateral action) is unique among the people of the world in its support for war. Perhaps Americans are more inclined toward war, that they are less appreciative of the costs and more enamored of war's supposed benefits. More likely, however, is that the information that would allow them to make a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis has been less widely circulated in the U.S. than it has in other countries.

[B-Man]

Barring an unforeseen disaster, I can't imagine the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iraq. Practically speaking, I would guess we could do whatever needed to be done with conventional weapons, without killing hundreds of thousands of civilians unnecessarily. The political fallout from using nukes would just be too high.

If some great disaster happens (another 9-11 scale event that we think was done by Iraq), I suppose this could change.

[brad]

its been reported in the news that US has 'superbombs' that are roughly equivalent to a small nuke (i read to be hiroshima size yield).

so we'll see if that plays out into anything.

[John Cole]

Yesterday, on NPR, I listended to an interview wih a US ambassador. He firmly believes that France, Germany, and Russia will fall into line and vote with us when a final resolution is reached at the UN. He sees their disent as mere posturing right now.

John

[MMMMMM]

I actually think it would probably be better if they vote against us--thereby highlighting the anachronistic, ineffective structure of the fundamentally flawed U.N.

Let the U.N. die a natural death--to be replaced eventually by an organization of Free States.