Sorry if this has been brought up before, but what are some of the alternatives to war in Iraq? I've heard people here (and on other sites) mention better options, but I've never found a description of those options. Anyone have links to articles or care to describe for themselves? Thanks.
Part of the problem with finding alternatives is that our objective is not clear. Are we going to war to: A. disarm Saddam? B. eliminate Saddam? C. eliminate Saddam and his family? D. eliminate Saddam, his family, anyone that thinks like him, or anyone that doesn't like us? E. create a 51st state? F. get lots of oil and oil related projects for US companies (not Haliburton as that would be a conflict of interest)? G. all of the above? H. None of the above? I can provide alternative for A and B. The weapons inspectors can easily disarm Saddam. If the US were to provide the knowledge that we have of which weapons he has and where he keeps them they then go to the sites and verify what we told them. At that point the material is either destroyed voluntarily or we bomb the site. Assasination is the logical approach to eliminating 1 individual in a city the size of Baghdad. I have heard estimates on the cost of this war that range from $50b to $200b ,not counting the pay-offs to other countries to get their support. If you put a $2b price on his head someone will take him out. Pretty simple (simplistic?) stuff and it doesn't kill thousands of civillians or risk the lives of our military personnel. Unfortunately I don't think that either of these are the objectives of the Bush Administration. If they were I'm sure they could come up with more logical solution than the ones they have proposed.
The Guardian invited several writers to try to answer this question. I'd be interested to hear anyone's input on these articles. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/0,6957,178327,00.html
Re: Re: Alternatives to War? Thank you. Objectives cannot be set either when you have an implied threat. If it were simply a police-style extraction of Saddam then there would be mass global support and ample legitimacy. As it stands now, this will be the failure of the current policy doctrine. Furthermore, Iraq has never really shaken off a colonial administration. From Turk to Brit to indigenous dictatorship, Iraq is ossified with the bureacracy of a weak state and shattered society. At its very heart, the US position is orientalist in its projection of democracy-building and does not allow for the Wilsonian ideal of self-determination that has garnered a longevity in support from our allies throughout the Cold War. The WMD argument is a fig-leaf. If Zimbabwe had oil it would be Mugabe that we'd want to "regime change". This president has zero international credibility and less than 50% at home. How does one promote democracy let alone build it when one doesn't even have it at home?