http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/opinion/02MEAR.html Op-ed from the Times today written by a dean at the Kennedy School and a poly sci professor at U of Chicago. You have to register, etc. Basically, they claim that the case for the war rests on the faulty claim that Hussein is a reckless expansionist who cannot be contained. They argue against this claim, saying that Hussein was provoked into the Iran-Iraq war and thought he had tacit US approval before attacking Kuwait. In their words "In fact, Iraq has never gone to war in the face of a clear deterrent threat." They go through and dismiss most pro-war arguments: Saddam's history of using WMD, threat of nuclear blackmail, threat of passing WMD on to al-Qaeda. [/b] Mr. Hussein's use of poison gas was despicable, but it tells us nothing about what he might do against the United States or its allies. He could use chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians because they could not retaliate in kind. The United States, by contrast, can retaliate with overwhelming force, including weapons of mass destruction. This is why Mr. Hussein did not use chemical or biological weapons against American forces or Israel during the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Nor has he used such weapons since, even though the United States has bombed Iraq repeatedly over the past decade. The same logic explains why Mr. Hussein cannot blackmail us. Nuclear blackmail works only if the blackmailer's threat might actually be carried out. But if the intended target can retaliate in kind, carrying out the threat causes the blackmailer's own destruction. This is why the Soviet Union, which was far stronger than Iraq and led by men of equal ruthlessness, never tried blackmailing the United States. Thoughts from the 'war is necessary now' people?
Actually I did research on biological/chemical weapons a few years ago and have some insight. You think he didn't use them during the Gulf War? Well I have a little different idea, since our main focus at our lab was that he used something against our soldiers durin gthe altercation (who could actually call anything that one-sided a war?). After seeing many of the studies that were done, I would think that he did use something. I am not sure what but a lot of the claims of Gulf War veterans with "Gulf War Syndrome" mirror that what I saw in the lab. So I wouldn't go that far to say that he didn't use chemical weapons during Desert Storm, but would rather leave that door open.
My opinon is this......... If the UN is going to mandate that Hussein must disarm his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities, and for about 12 years now they have yet to get Hussein to legitimately disarm or even legitimately make efforts to disarm, the UN has a choice to either be a worthless cess pool of politicians and diplomats, or actually enforce its regulations. With regards to the justification for war, I wait until the 5th to hear what is said. I generally don't like going to war to stop someone from getting chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. That being said, if I were to list a group of countries that would sell a terrorist a WMD it would probalby start with Iraq, go to Pakistan and then probably next go to N. Korea. I don't know, just my two cents.
Dear America, Containment works! Look at the Maginot line.....quite genius..... Sincerely, The French
One of the lines of argument often trotted out is that "we contained the Soviet Union, why couldn't we contain measly little weak Iraq?" First of all, we have to make the distinction between "containment" and "deterrence." There's no doubt we "deterred" the Soviet Union from engaging in wide-scale conflict. But did we really "contain" them? The Soviet Union exerted a lot of power and influence for the 50 years following the war, WELL beyond its sovereign borders, in places like Korea, Hungary, Czechslovakia, Latin America, Vietnam, Afganistan. Some of those forays were more successful than others. But we did deter the Soviets from using nuclear weapons?Yep, it was MAD, but it was sane too. Have we deterred Saddam Hussein? My instinct tells me yes, in that he won't use WMDs in first strike way as an instrument of Iraqi policy, at least for quite some time. But have we REALLY contained him? If his ultimate political ambition is to be a hegemonist, a 21st version of Saladdin, can we EVER be successful at doing so? The Soviet Union was not "contained" into oblivion -- it collapsed when its own leaders began instituting reforms, which led to its inevitable undoing via its own inherent contradictions. (By the way, the same thing may happen in Iran, too; stay tuned). Can you see Iraq as currently constituted making political reforms? Is there any hope for such a scenario in Iraq? Doubtful, very doubtful. The only way to end a Stalinist regime is to get rid of Stalin -- or have him die his inevitable natural death. Guys like that don't mellow, and as a rule don't get deposed. Saddam is patient, methodical, and he will wait us out if we give him to opportunity to do so. He will be deterred, but can we contain ambitions that could be expressed through proxies in a shadowy world of terrorism? I can see the arguments for containment, but I just don't buy them. Wating to see how it plays out could be VERY hazardous indeed.
> Containment works! Look at the Maginot line.....quite genius..... The Maginot line was part of a very different philosophy that has little to do with modern ideas of containment. It was designed to blunt an initial German attack and set up a static front so that Britain and France could then starve Germany through a naval blockade. It was thus part of an active process of defeating Germany, not a containment system. It was foiled by the combination of the German/Russian non-aggression pact which allowed large amounts of Russian supplies into Germany and the obsolescence of any fixed emplacement against German stormtrooper tactics devised in 1918, especially with the shaped charge invened the late 1930s. Iraq can't do anything with its chemical weapons except use them defensively. They do not have the force to take advantage of them offensively. They won't as long as we maintain a blockade and restrict their money supply, as we have done for a decade.
While I would agree he probably won't (as opposed to couldn't) use his CHEMICAL weapons on the offense, is that what we are concerned about? And what about biological weapons? You know, when folks pooh-pooh the Iraq connection to terrorism as unproven and therefore should be dismissed outright, that makes me very nervous. When Tony Blair says, as he has on occasions, that he simply does not want to be a leader who knew that something bad might happen, and he had in his power to do something about it, but didn't -- well, that's understandable, isn't it?? That's a pointed finger you do NOT want to see aiming at YOU.
This doesn't seem relevant at all. EVERY leader has to worry about this stuff all the time. Being anxious over one's legacy is no reason to start bombing thousands of innocent people.
Show me one single post by ANYONE here who said that a connection between Iraq and terrorism should be dismissed outright? I remember seeing (and posting myself) that there is no proven connection, but no one ever said that a connection therefore has to be ruled out. Personally, I'd love to see incontrovertible proof that there is a connection. I'd love to see the blood of 9-11 on Saddam's hands, because I still want revenge for that. But so far, there's nothing there. You really do like to construct straw men.
Actually, this was the entire idea of containment, as articulated by George Kennan in 1946 (in the long telegram and his foreign affairs article). Kennan argued that if the US opposed the USSR and blocked its efforts at expansion (note: not its attempts to wield influence, but expansion vis a vis what occurred in Eastern Europe) that eventually it would collapse due to its own internal contradictions. It took a long time to happen, but Kennan, in retrospect, looks pretty prescient.
Thanks for posting the article, Needs. I hadn't seen it and am glad that you pointed it out. I find it interesting on a number of different levels. I studied with both of these guys at the U. of Chicago (before Walt moved to Harvard). After watching them disagree constantly for years, watching them make common cause against the war is certainly a serious moment. Mearsheimer is an old school realist. You should read some of his articles. They are about pure power politics from a pro-US angle. Walt is a bit harder to place in the community. His views always seemed to be a well-reasoned mix of pragmatic realism and a more international/institutional perspective. Thus while they are not diametrically opposed, they certainly aren't of the same mind on many issues. They are both big believers in deterrence, which explains the slant of their article. Let's go over what they did not mention: 1) History of Containment/Deterrence: They claim that containment/deterrence has worked in the past and thus will work in the future. However, they do not explain that deterrence only covers extreme acts of violence that threaten our most vital interests. Sure, it prevented the USSR from using nukes on America or rolling its tanks across all of Europe. However, as Karl Keller mentioned, it did not prevent many other Soviet invasions or contain their influence throughout the world. Walt and Mearsheimer left this fact out since it cuts the legs off of their position. Sure we can contain Iraq from launching an invasion of all of the Middle East or directly launching nukes at our closest allies or us. However, there is no evidence from the history of containment to suggest that we will prevent Iraq from all war on his neighbors, more limited use of WMDs on his citizens or others, or even, the much less likely, transfer of WMDs to other hostile states or groups such as Al Qaeda. They also ignore the fact that Iraq differs in serious ways from the USSR. Iraq is a one-man show and it is quite possible that Saddam will respond differently to our containment policies than the coolly rational old men of the Kremlin. Do I think he is suicidal? No, but no one can predict how he will react if he fells his power slipping from him. As Walt et al. point out; Iraq felt that Iran was fomenting revolution so he attacked them. What happens if he believes that defectors in Jordan or the Saudi ruling family are undermining his rule? Are you sure he won't "misunderstand" again and launch an attack? 2) Lessons of the Iran-Iraq war: Walt et al. fail to discuss what we should learn about Saddam from the manner in which he fought Iraq. They don't point out that Saddam knew early on that he would not defeat Iran. Yet he did nothing to bring the devastating war to a halt until the war began to so economically weaken Iraq as to threaten Saddam's future. Thus we should learn that Saddam is willing to inflict death and economic devastation on his own people to secure his rule and inflate his ego. The use of chemical weapons reveals that Saddam is willing to go to any lengths to accomplish his goal. If these facts don't lead you to worry about him getting stronger WMD, then I worry for your sanity... 3) Saddam's "Misunderstanding": It is still unclear to what extent Saddam misunderstood US intentions prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Did he really believe that we'd let him control that much of the world oil and threaten to grab Saudi oil as well? If so he is a fool and quite dangerous for that reason. If not, then he was taking a pretty massive risk for limited gains. Again I would not want such a person to get a nuclear weapon, would you? 4) Why didn't Saddam pull out of Kuwait? Walt and Mearsheimer don't deal with this aspect of the first war at all. Why? I think they ignore it because it punches a large hole in their argument. It was obvious the summer before the Gulf War that the US-led coalition would defeat Iraq. Why didn't a "rational" Saddam pull his forces out and preserve them in the face of such overwhelming opposition? He was willing to risk them and Iraq for what? Revenge on the Kuwaitis? Some stolen wealth? International attention? Does it really matter? Anyone who fails to respond to such a direct threat to his people must be viewed as a very dangerous and unstable leader. Why trust in his "rational" response in future situations? Walt and Mearsheimer have no response to these questions so they just ignore the issue. 5) Our response to WMD attack: Many people including Walt et al. argue that Saddam did not use WMD in the first gulf war because we could respond to any attack with nuclear annihilation of Iraq. They're wrong. It appears more likely that he did use them because we never threatened his rule of Iraq directly. It is highly questionable that we'd even use nuclear weapons if he'd killed tens of thousands of American soldiers with chemical weapons. Why do I say this? Because Bush I and his Sec of State said exactly that after the first Gulf war. They admitted that even though they had threatened to use our nuclear weapons on Iraq if they used WMD that in fact they would not have done so. They both say that we would have just had our (remaining) soldiers don their WMD-protection and launch a conventional attack on Baghdad. Saddam has had years to reflect on these admissions. Are you sure that he won't decide that future American threats are also a bluff? Thus Walt and Mearsheimer's claims are based on their guess about what Saddam will think and not a reasoned analysis of the recent history. This fact alone renders their whole discussion of our deterrence ability and threatening statements by the current administration meaningless. 6) North Korea: Notice that they argue that we will only use diplomacy with N. Korea. How do they know that? The situation in N. Korea is far from being resolved and it appears to be escalating every day. We are moving more bombers into range of their facilities and there is talk of moving an aircraft carrier battle group there. We are using diplomatic carrots backed up by military sticks. Walt et al. ignore this fact in their discussion of the N. Korean situation. They also don't reveal the belief of many in the national security community that anti-proliferation measures such as the ones they advocate are failing. 7) Al Qaeda: Walt and Mearsheimer claim that there is no connection and that there is no chance that Saddam would ever share WMD with Al Qaeda. Ok, I agree that it the most likely outcome. However, that does not mean that Iraq couldn't use terrorist tactics to threaten the U.S. What if Iraq uses the same holes in our borders as Al Qaeda to move his own agents into our country? What if they enter carrying WMDs? What if Saddam during some future conflict with a neighboring state tells the US to stay out of it or he'll release smallpox in 5 US cities? What if he demonstrates his capability by taking out a small city in Montana? Are you as confident as Walt is that we can't be blackmailed? I'm not. I think that we'd be forced to balance our homeland security against our interests in whatever state Iraq is fighting. Which do you think will win the policy debate? 8) Saddam's Nuclear program: Walt et al. argue that Iraq is further from getting nuclear materials now than ever before. Ok, again that seems to be a reasonable conclusion based on public discussions. Of course we have no access to intelligence that may make us out doubt this conclusion. It also ignores the fact that before the UN could destroy Iraq's nuke program in the mid-late 90s, Saddam successfully hid the reactivation of the nuclear program while inspectors were in Iraq! Are you as confident as Walt and Mearsheimer that Saddam couldn't do so again? Saddam may have learned from the mistakes of his last attempt and may succeed next time. Walt and Mearsheimer present no discussion of this possibility. Why? 9) Proliferation: Walt et al argue that our handling of the N.Korean and Iraq WMD threats will increase proliferation of WMD. They're wrong. Any state with even fairly intelligent leaders has known for decades that possession of nukes would serve as a good deterrent against US intervention. Nothing in the current situation changes this fact. There is no way to hide the fact that nukes are valuable for states wishing to conduct their policies without facing US forces invading their country. Thus the incentives to get WMD are unchanged in that respect. Yet Walt and Mearsheimer miss another lessons from this situation. If we successfully attack and disarm Iraq, other states seeking WMD weapons will have increased risk of US attack until they deploy a weapon. This effect can reduce the number of states pursuing nukes contrary to what Walt et al. claim. 10) War on Terror: Walt and Mearsheimer claim that a war on Iraq will "increase anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and help Osama bin Laden win more followers. Preventive war would also reinforce the growing perception that the United States is a bully, thereby jeopardizing the international unity necessary to defeat global terrorism." Yes, that is true. However, the alternative is likely to have very dire effects as well. If we try to contain Iraq, we will be forced to keep a large force in the region. Otherwise Saddam will begin playing with the UN inspections just as he did in the 90s. The presence of our forces in the region will ""increase anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and help Osama bin Laden win more followers." Thus both option produce this result. It can be argued that an attack on Iraq will produce more of this effect than just a larger number of forces in the region. However, it could also be argued that if we can get Saddam out of Iraq and a new regime up and running that we could reduce the number of our forces in the region over the next decade. This would likely decrease anti-Americanism and hurt terror recruitment. Thus the long-term cost/benefit outcomes from either option are highly uncertain. Why don't Walt and Mearsheimer mention this? ___________________________________ Overall, I'd say that the article is interesting and does a good job of pointing out some of the reasons not to go to war. However, the many reasons to go to war that Walt and Mearsheimer ignore or fail to adequately explain limits the conclusions one can make based on this article. I believe that a fair and full analysis of all of these considerations leads one to the conclusion that it is better to attack Iraq now.
Ok, I'll concede that folks like YOU don't necessarily dismiss the idea outright that there MIGHT be a connection, even thought there's no absolutely 100% certain irrefutable proof. But to say there's "Nothing there??" See: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030210fa_fact Meanwhile, disabuse yourself of the notion -- heck, maybe it's even a 'straw man' -- of "incontrovertible proof." It ain't comin' until we go in there, and get a hold of the weapons and the documents. Are we supposed to apply American legalistic concepts, such as innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to a guy like Saddam Hussein? Many of the arguments have gone along the lines "You can't conclusively prove a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, therefore that can't be a reason to go war..." In the end, that leads you to a level of inaction AS IF NO CONNECTION were there... it leads you, ispo facto, to basically the same result.
Why am I not surpised you didn't show us a link to "one single post by ANYONE here who said that a connection between Iraq and terrorism should be dismissed outright?" I read the article. In fact, I have a subscription to the magazine. Keep in mind that the people suggesting there is a definite link between Saddam and Al Qaeda are those who have a vested interest in having one. There's "nothing there" but allegations of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others who want "something there."
My view is that purely pragmatic arguments for one side or the other ultimately debate a cost-benefit analysis contingent on future costs and benefits that are unknown and subject to speculation. This leads to a conservative approach that inherently will err on the side of doing less. I didn't read the article, but it is a mistake to overemphasize pragmatic points. The strongest case for war postulated by Bush is the moral case against Sadaam coupled with the pragmatic potential for an application of deterrance to the problem of weapons proliferation and the potential reformulation of power politics in the Middle East. It's an extremely bold and possibly reckless policy, but that doesn't seem to bother Bush nor his supporters. So, from Bush's viewpoint, his choice is not merely reactive between containment and war when faced with Sadaam. It's also proactive in seeking political and moral objectives beyond the immediate problem. The hubris is quite breathtaking really when one considers the picture from the vantage point of your average Iraqi citizen.
the link between al queda and iraq is not there. on cnn.com it says that powell will not suggest a formal alliance between the two when he addresses the UN, but will detail travels of al queda members into and out of iraq. well then.... we should invade half the goddamned countries on the planet