The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq

[RosevilleCAguy]

I just started reading the above titled book by Kenneth M. Pollack.

While not through it yet, I find Pollock's analysis fascinating.

In a nutshell, Pollack believes that the United States has five options available to it at the present juncture.

1) Rebuild the containment policy that was in place immediately after the 1991 war.

2) Rely on pure deterrence (like the cold war) to keep Iraq in military check.

3) Use of covert actions to topple Saddam Hussein.

4) Employ the "Afghan Approach" of using indigenous people who hate Saddam Hussien to effect change as was done in Afghanistan.

5) Mount a full scale invasion of Iraq, remove the current regime, completely scour the country for WMD, and rebuild a stable, properous country.

Pollack argues that the last option is the "least bad" of the choices facing the United States. He uses the analogy of the Anglo-French position in 1938 vis-a-vis Nazi Germany. He does clearly state that Saddam does not equal Hitler. His point is that he feels that a war now, while costly is highly preferable to a war later with a nuclear-armed Saddam.

Your thoughts?

And please, for the sake of being able to take opinions seriously, try to refrain from "Blood for Oil" "Yankee Imperialism" or "America, Love it or Leave it" type arguments unless you have reputable facts to back your opinions.

Thanks.

 

[Tranquility]

Pollack argues that the last option is the "least bad" of the choices facing the United States. He uses the analogy of the Anglo-French position in 1938 vis-a-vis Nazi Germany. He does clearly state that Saddam does not equal Hitler. His point is that he feels that a war now, while costly is highly preferable to a war later with a nuclear-armed Saddam.

I agree with that because IMHO if we don't do something now it will continue to manifest itself and be alot worse in a few yrs. Even though I am peaceful,peace loving person I see no other alternative at the this junction in the road.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Pollack argues that the last option is the "least bad" of the choices facing the United States. He uses the analogy of the Anglo-French position in 1938 vis-a-vis Nazi Germany. He does clearly state that Saddam does not equal Hitler. His point is that he feels that a war now, while costly is highly preferable to a war later with a nuclear-armed Saddam.

I agree with that because IMHO if we don't do something now it will continue to manifest itself and be alot worse in a few yrs. Even though I am peaceful,peace loving person I see no other alternative at the this junction in the road.

According to Pollock, its inevitable. FYI, Pollack was the only intel analyst who anticipated the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

 

[Dantetier]

I agree... the complete rebuilding of Iraq would be the best choice for a number of reasons.

1. To remove a man completely undeserving of life, let alone power.

2. To remove his regieme, who would undoubtedly continue in his footsteps

3. Once rebuilt into a sucessful country AND IS NOT OWNED IN ANY WAY BY THE US (important to reduce the amount of people who claim we simply annexed Iraq), then i think most people would see what a good thing we did for the people over there.

 

[REDWAVE]

Global hegemony

The coming U.S. attack on Iraq will be an imperialist war of aggression and conquest, designed to achieve global hegemony by controlling the vast oil and gas reserves of Iraq and the Middle East generally. The blood-thirsty nuclear armed madmen who rule the U.S. intend an initial two days of massive bombing, launching about 300-400 Cruise missiles per day. That will constitute one of the greatest and most barbaric acts of mass murder and crimes against humanity ever committed in all of human history.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Grow up, flunky. You read like Nostradomus.

 

[A Desert Rose]

I just started reading the above titled book by Kenneth M. Pollack.

While not through it yet, I find Pollock's analysis fascinating.

In a nutshell, Pollack believes that the United States has five options available to it at the present juncture.

1) Rebuild the containment policy that was in place immediately after the 1991 war.

2) Rely on pure deterrence (like the cold war) to keep Iraq in military check.

3) Use of covert actions to topple Saddam Hussein.

4) Employ the "Afghan Approach" of using indigenous people who hate Saddam Hussien to effect change as was done in Afghanistan.

5) Mount a full scale invasion of Iraq, remove the current regime, completely scour the country for WMD, and rebuild a stable, properous country.

Pollack argues that the last option is the "least bad" of the choices facing the United States. He uses the analogy of the Anglo-French position in 1938 vis-a-vis Nazi Germany. He does clearly state that Saddam does not equal Hitler. His point is that he feels that a war now, while costly is highly preferable to a war later with a nuclear-armed Saddam.

Your thoughts?

And please, for the sake of being able to take opinions seriously, try to refrain from "Blood for Oil" "Yankee Imperialism" or "America, Love it or Leave it" type arguments unless you have reputable facts to back your opinions.

Thanks.

Option1: Will not work. We are living in a world now that proves it does/will not work. Also, you cannot contain an idea. Once the knowledge is available to build a mousetrap (or WMD), there is no way to halt the construction.

Option2: Will not work. Returning to a cold war mentality is not something that suicide prone soldiers understand. I don't think I need explain that any further.

Option3: Might work but then again... we never could covertly get rid of Castro and Lord knows the CIA tried. We might be better off sending in the Mussad (I hope I spelled that correctly). They are very adept at finding their man and taking care of him.

Option4: Will not work. I don't think there is any situation (regarding U.S. foreign policy) in the past where this did work. The indigenous people of Iraq are not trained nor equipped, on any level, to handle a regime takeover.

Option5: Unfortunately, our only choice, in my opinion.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq

Option1: Will not work. We are living in a world now that proves it does/will not work. Also, you cannot contain an idea. Once the knowledge is available to build a mousetrap (or WMD), there is no way to halt the construction.

Option2: Will not work. Returning to a cold war mentality is not something that suicide prone soldiers understand. I don't think I need explain that any further.

Option3: Might work but then again... we never could covertly get rid of Castro and Lord knows the CIA tried. We might be better off sending in the Mussad (I hope I spelled that correctly). They are very adept at finding their man and taking care of him.

Option4: Will not work. I don't think there is any situation (regarding U.S. foreign policy) in the past where this did work. The indigenous people of Iraq are not trained nor equipped, on any level, to handle a regime takeover.

Option5: Unfortunately, our only choice, in my opinion.

Maybe you can get a job as a CIA analyst. It only takes Pollock 400 pages to rech teh same conclusion.

Then again, maybe you DO work for the CIA. Somebody has to keep an eye on REDWAVE so he doesn't hurt himself.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Global hegemony

The blood-thirsty nuclear armed madmen who rule the U.S. intend an initial two days of massive bombing, launching about 300-400 Cruise missiles per day. *edited by RCAG to eliminate what he opines is pointless political drivel*

Hmm. I should think blood thirsty nuclear armed madmen would use their nuclear weapons.


Aside from that editorial quip, the rest of the game plan makes good tactical sense to me from a military standpoint.

 

[alltherage]

All the arguments for and against invasion now seem week to me. The reason they both do so is because as of this date neither side has produced solid proof to support their case. Saddam is a tin pot dictator who has a single goal in mind in my opinion. That goal is to survive. His calculations are predicated on that single thought. No one has explained to me how he could ever attack the united states and survive as president of iraq. I also believe containment works. I simply do not see him mounting a serious threat to the area so long as inspectors are on the ground. I suspect he will be at his most dangerous when he is in fact under attack and he see's his inevitable end. At that point he has nothing to loose.

One of the goals of invading afganistan was to arrest or kill Bin Laden. We have not. Are we garrunteed that Saddam will not escape? Just a thought.

My biggest fear is that the united states is staking out a position that says that if one state feels threatened by another it has the right to strike first. China and Tiawan, Pakistan and India, Israel and eveyone else are three examples where we would not want to have this standard applied.

One cannot deny Iraq's oil or its seqularism, its stragegic placement, and the onerous nature of its leader has played into the United States case for invasion. Americans love to deny its imperialism. We cloak it in the notion that we are christians and good people and we bring good things with us. In this case we will bring death to half a million iraq's according to some estimates. High price to pay for one tin pot dictator.

 

[Dantetier]

War is usually considered just and necessary by the proponets of it, and unjust and barbaric to the opponents. The victors will be correct.

 

[Dantetier]

All the arguments for and against invasion now seem week to me. The reason they both do so is because as of this date neither side has produced solid proof to support their case. Saddam is a tin pot dictator who has a single goal in mind in my opinion. That goal is to survive. His calculations are predicated on that single thought. No one has explained to me how he could ever attack the united states and survive as president of iraq. I also believe containment works. I simply do not see him mounting a serious threat to the area so long as inspectors are on the ground. I suspect he will be at his most dangerous when he is in fact under attack and he see's his inevitable end. At that point he has nothing to loose.

One of the goals of invading afganistan was to arrest or kill Bin Laden. We have not. Are we garrunteed that Saddam will not escape? Just a thought.

My biggest fear is that the united states is staking out a position that says that if one state feels threatened by another it has the right to strike first. China and Tiawan, Pakistan and India, Israel and eveyone else are three examples where we would not want to have this standard applied.

One cannot deny Iraq's oil or its seqularism, its stragegic placement, and the onerous nature of its leader has played into the United States case for invasion. Americans love to deny its imperialism. We cloak it in the notion that we are christians and good people and we bring good things with us. In this case we will bring death to half a million iraq's according to some estimates. High price to pay for one tin pot dictator.

Of course, we should completely ignore the thousands of people he's killed with chemical weapons, his total disregard to UN resolutions, and his past agressive terrorist activities? Even if we simply blockaded his country and allowed no one or nothing in or out of the country, all the Iraqi citizens will still be forced to live under a murderous dictator who starves and kills them, yet manages to build palaces that ooze opulence.

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Interesting thread, RCG.

If we asked the same questions concerning the 1937-38 period of German history, I wonder what the differences would be? Not much, I'd presume, other than prior to 1942 the US was not a world player by any stretch of the imagination.

It seems to me that we can now, once again follow the Chamberlain policy of appeasement ( not restricted to Neville) or we can take a proactive responce to the despots in this world.

Either course is costly. Delay always seems to increase those costs geometrically in monetary cost as well as human . I see little choice other than your fifth...it will be done sooner or later, at a cost lesser or greater.

Rhumb

 

[Hamletmaschine]

. . . Your thoughts?

I think you probably reported his multiple-choice quiz accurately. Why he thinks these are the only 5 choices is beyond me, since I haven't read the book.

 

[alltherage]

Of course, we should completely ignore the thousands of people he's killed with chemical weapons, his total disregard to UN resolutions, and his past agressive terrorist activities? Even if we simply blockaded his country and allowed no one or nothing in or out of the country, all the Iraqi citizens will still be forced to live under a murderous dictator who starves and kills them, yet manages to build palaces that ooze opulence.

My dear. Perhaps we should ignore the fact the bush one fomented a revolution in that country and then walked away while thousands were killed. Perhaps we sould ignore the fact the we new about his chemical warfare plans and ignored them during his war with iran because he was our pal. perhaps we should ignore the fact the in this century no efforts have been made by the so called civilized world and all we the united nations and europeans do is piss into the same bullshit bowl. how many died in cambodia, rhuanda, in ethiopia, who gives a damn even now about north korea. pleaseeeeeeee. do not make us out to be cowboys with white hats rescuing the people of iraq. thats simply bullshit.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Of course, we should completely ignore the thousands of people he's killed with chemical weapons, his total disregard to UN resolutions, and his past agressive terrorist activities? Even if we simply blockaded his country and allowed no one or nothing in or out of the country, all the Iraqi citizens will still be forced to live under a murderous dictator who starves and kills them, yet manages to build palaces that ooze opulence.

Sounds like our kind of guy! Let's cut a deal with him, make nicey-nice. We'll give him a spiffy title like ... oh ... the Shah of Iraq.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

All the arguments for and against invasion now seem week to me. The reason they both do so is because as of this date neither side has produced solid proof to support their case. Saddam is a tin pot dictator who has a single goal in mind in my opinion. That goal is to survive. His calculations are predicated on that single thought. No one has explained to me how he could ever attack the united states and survive as president of iraq. I also believe containment works. I simply do not see him mounting a serious threat to the area so long as inspectors are on the ground. I suspect he will be at his most dangerous when he is in fact under attack and he see's his inevitable end. At that point he has nothing to loose.[B/]

I don't kinow if I have the same confidance in Saddam's hand being stayed by peace as you have. The guy is notorious for making gross miscalculations regarding almost every decision he has made. Containment is a failing policy. It requires long term military force commitment in the middle east and also requires allies who actually have the balls to keep the sanctions in place instead of circumventing them.

One of the goals of invading afganistan was to arrest or kill Bin Laden. We have not. Are we garrunteed that Saddam will not escape? Just a thought.[B/]

I'm not so sure that we haven't. Assuming we have not, the fact that an operation does not meet its objectives does not in and of itself invalidate the necessity of the operation

My biggest fear is that the united states is staking out a position that says that if one state feels threatened by another it has the right to strike first. China and Tiawan, Pakistan and India, Israel and eveyone else are three examples where we would not want to have this standard applied.[B/]

I believe first strikes happen all the time when there is a reasonable chance for success if the first strike option is used. In the cases cited, I beleive that it is not morality which keeps it from happening, it is that the goal would not be obtained by making a first strike.

One cannot deny Iraq's oil or its seqularism, its stragegic placement, and the onerous nature of its leader has played into the United States case for invasion. Americans love to deny its imperialism. We cloak it in the notion that we are christians and good people and we bring good things with us. In this case we will bring death to half a million iraq's according to some estimates. High price to pay for one tin pot dictator.[B/]

I agree on the oil statement and the one about secularism. In the technical sense, the United States is not imperialist, at least in the way the word is defined as it requires conditions be present for it to be applicable. Semantics aside, if the assesment in the book is correct, its either half a million Iraqis today or millions a few years from now, not to mention an correspondingly high number of American casualties.

 

[Guest]

Hey, I didn't threaten anybody.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Re: The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq

I think you probably reported his multiple-choice quiz accurately. Why he thinks these are the only 5 choices is beyond me, since I haven't read the book.

They are the only ones he considers viable. do you have any suggestions? Im trying to form my own opinion here, although I do find him pretty convincing so far.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

RhumbRunner13


Part of what makes the situation so sad is that a lot of the current position is due to sane men trying to think like a nutjob. A lot of what is happening regarding Iraq is due to the fact that U.S. policy for many years assumed he was rational.

I suspect that we have no choice, or at least no acceptable choices. There is an incredible amount of smoke and fog involved here also, the 9/11 connection, the oil issue, etc.

 

[ksmybuttons]

Power must be used wisely.

He needs to go, but what are the options for him leaving. What do the people of Iraq want? Who in Iraq offers another alternative to Saddam?

Threats and posturing are just like flames on the board. It gets people anxious and they lose control. The difference is that Bush and Saddam have real life WMD and there will be too much collateral damage both there and here at home if we just go in and bomb.

We, as a country, are disrespectful of people of different cultures and beliefs. In order for globalization to take place we, as a world, need to respect and honor our differences and find ways to make it work.

Power must be used wisely. I wish we had wise leaders in this world right now.