Iraq [was Re: [CLUE-Talk] Slashdot Gun Control]

[Matt Gushee]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 09:18:46AM -0700, Randy Arabie wrote:

> While no evidence has been presented to confirm that Iraq has WMD of any
> form, I think we do have good reasons to beleive they do or are in the 
> process of developing them.

It's very nice that you think that, but why do you? Surely you don't
believe the government simply because it's the government--I know you're
much smarter than that.

According to reports I have seen and believe to be credible (sorry, no
time to look them up right this moment), even if Iraq is planning to
develop nuclear weapons, it is doubtful they will have the capacity to
deliver them any time soon. Iraq's overall military strength is a small
fraction of what it was prior to the Gulf War. Furthermore, the
country's civilian infrastructure has been devastated--thanks the war,
ten years of sanctions, and regular US bombing raids in the "no-fly 
zones," which, by the way, cover more than half the country. It would
take quite a long time for Iraq to regain the strength it had in 1991.

Furthermore, there was a statement from the CIA back in, oh, I guess
September, saying that, if Iraq had WMD, they were only likely to use
them against us if we attacked them. Think "cornered animal."

Oh, wait, I forgot. The CIA is incompetent. I know they are because the
TV tells me so. We don't need no stinkin' investigation to prove that.

> I have reserved judgement pending the outcome of the current inspections 
> and Iraq's compliance (or lack thereof) with the recent UN sanctions.  If 
> there is existing evidence the administration is entitled to keep it secret 
> until they want to move forward with military action.

Until they want to?! Dude, last time I checked, declaring war was
Congress's job. And if Congress fails to assert its authority, it's up
to the citizenry to set things right.

> It is well known that the UN weapons inspections following the Gulf War 
> were hindered by Iraqi deception and denial of access.  The
> International Institute for Strategic Studies "dossier" on Iraq seems to
> contradict Mr. Ritters statements.  
> 
> See http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3

Okay, they have a lot to say about what *could* be happening. And one of
their conclusions is:

 # It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile
   material from foreign sources were obtained.

That's still a big if. Maybe Iraq could buy fissionable material from
some impoverished former Soviet republic; well, by the same token,
Mozambique could probably buy fully-armed tactical nuclear missiles from
them. If you want to play what-if games, there are probably 100
countries that could pose threats to us in a few years. And rats might
crawl out of your toilet and bite you on the ass.

My position on this is: we cannot eliminate every potential threat.
Preemptive military action against countries that pose no clear and
present danger is morally wrong, but even if you take the defensible
position that it's a rough world and we can't afford that kind of
morality, you have to deal with the fact that there will eventually be a
backlash against US adventurism. And if we're not careful about who we
attack, at some point--maybe 200 years down the road, maybe 5--we will
get hit hard. Maybe we will anyway. And, like it or not, this country
won't be strong forever; so we would do well to get along with our 
allies and be wary of lashing out at enemies, lest we find ourselves one
day with nothing left but enemies.

> And this just last week: "US Suspect Al Qaeda Got Nerve Agent From
> Iraqis"
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42876-2002Dec11.html

Anything's possible, I suppose. I would only note that our government
keeps trying to make that link, and keeps coming up empty-handed. Iraqi
meets al-Quaeda agent in Prague? Not according to Vaclav Havel (last I
heard, he liked America). And so on ...

> I think we could cite reports and sources of information for hours that 
> support either side of the argument.  We will not know until the
> evidence is presented.  Until that time, I look at Iraqs history and
> say, "Saddam has denied, lied and deceived in the past.  I suspect he 
> does have WMD and/or programs to develop them."

Gosh, a lying dictator. That's unusual. 

> I don't support war a against Iraq without evidence supporting those 
> suspicions.  And, I don't expect the US to go to war without presenting 
> the evidence.

You don't? What makes you believe that evidence will be presented? Let
me be charitable and assume that the Bush administration can be trusted.
Have you heard any official statements that evidence will be presented?
I haven't; on the contrary, I recall only statements to the effect that
"we don't have to present the evidence."

> >  * If aggressive states with nuclear weapons are such a menace, why
> >    haven't we already invaded North Korea? They openly admit to having a
> >    nuclear weapons program, and have fired several test missiles into
> >    Japanese waters. Or what about Pakistan, which not only has nukes,
> >    but is taking our money and using it to brutally suppress human
> >    rights--and probably also to protect Taliban and Al Qaida fugitives?
> 
> Even with the best military in the world, we can't take them all at 
> once. Perhaps one of them will be next. If an example is made of Iraq, then 
> we will have greater leverage in diplomatic negotiations with the rest of the 
> "Axis of Evil".
> 
> Additionally, Iraq is an easier target.

In other words, they're not that much of a threat. And their oilfields
are so much richer.

Oops! Sorry, Mr. Cheney, I won't mention that word again. No, you're
right. I know how dedicated you are to public service. None of this
could possibly have anything to do with oil.

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)