Who is benefiting? (political question)

[Pure]

The causes, reasons, accidents, etc. that lead up to a war can always be argued.
Official speeches may simply state pretexts, and whats constitutes one is also debatable.

But the continuation of any war, likewise has reasons.

So let's look at Iraq.

Who, exactly, is benefiting from the continuance of this war? (or even consider, who is benefitting from the continued quagmire of the war--if there is one--i.e. even if the war drags on with no victory for the US.)

My first nominees are Halliburton and Bechtel.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It really depends on how you want to spin benefiting.

Obviously defense contractors across the boards are. Even those who don't have fat contracts still benefit as ordenance is used, machines are run, and material damage is accrued. Vehicles have to be replaced, as do parts, munitions also have to be replaced as they are spent.

The army, Navy, marine Corps and Air Force are also benefitting. They are all learning under live fire situations and are developing, testing and refining doctrine. Their troops are also gaining experience.

Many of the troops are benefiting. They are getting combat pay, hazardous duty pay, and they are serving in overseas posts. This will drop them to the bottom of the lists for involuntary deployment in the advent of other crisis.

Politicians are benefitting, making hay out of their support and drumming up nationalistic as well as patriotic fervor in the electorate.

Should the Iraqi people manage a stable democracy, they are benefitting as well as everyone with a more stable middle east. that benefit is questionable, but it seems as likely to come to pass as us pulling out and the country falling into civil war and extremism.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Militant Islam is benefitting like crazy. We've given them a cause, a focus, any number of martyrs, and an enemy they really hate.

As long as we're there, they can rationalize their atrocities as nationalism, so they even have the support of their victims.

 

[Pure]

Colly: //They are all learning under live fire situations and are developing, testing and refining doctrine.//

Not mere doctrine but strategy and tactics of desert and urban warfare. Very importantly, lots of new equipment (for reconnaissance), armor, and ordnance. Incendiary devices, mines, latest refinement of 'daisy cutter' and 1000 lb bomb, laser guided 'smart bomb' etc.

//Even those who don't have fat contracts still benefit as ordenance is used, machines are run, and material damage is accrued. Vehicles have to be replaced, as do parts, munitions also have to be replaced as they are spent. //

This is important. Orwell, in 1984, cited the advantages of permanent war. Industry runs at full speed producing items that are destroyed quickly. Of course stockholders, and 'defense' workers benefit, but the general 'mass' of society does not (the last being the point, in the 1984 scenario). Wages in many sectors have remained stagnant or falling in real value. (Odd, how people are induced to vote for all this!).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is important. Orwell, in 1984, cited the advantages of permanent war. Industry runs at full speed producing items that are destroyed quickly. Of course stockholders, and 'defense' workers benefit, but the general 'mass' of society does not (the last being the point, in the 1984 scenario). Wages in many sectors have remained stagnant or falling in real value. (Odd, how people are induced to vote for all this!).

Orwell also knew the advantages of a permanent state of war in keeping the populace docile and compliant as their rights and priviledges were usurped and suspended.

Anyone criticizing the permanent state of war is, of course, seditious, if not an outright traitor, just as today, anyone questioning the purpose of the war in Iraq is considered unpatriotic and soft on terrorism, even though the war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorisn.

It's also interesting that the War on Terror is open-ended. It will never end. As long as someone somewhere is willing to use violence for a political end, the War on Terror will continue. It truly is a permanent state of war.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Another group that has an interest in the War in Iraq are those that want the US to maintain a permanent land-based military presence in the Middle East. I have little doubt anymore that this was one of the unspoken goals of the invasion. While we trumpeted our desire to bring democracy to Iraq, what we really wanted was to establish a government that would be compliant to out political interests in the region.

If the democratically elected government of Iraq turned around tomorrow and told us they wanted all US troops out of their country, do you really think we'd agree?

You can forget about any announcements of large-scale troop removal. We're there for the long run. Iraq is going to be our puppet state in the region.

 

[elsol]

Osama Bin Laden

He got/gets to keep breathing for a lot longer than he should have.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

The question of who benefits financially always appears temptingly like the final answer to a situation. However, I'd suggest that it can also be misleading. Every change in a major policy or political situation, good or bad, benefits someone financially, and I'd go so far as to say that they will inevitably benefit more than the intended beneficiaries as well. Defense contactors benefitted financially from the production of the military hardware that liberated concentration camps. Doctors benefit financially from providing abortions. Drug companies benefit from supplying anti-AIDS drugs. CEO's of charities benefit from their salaries, often high, while administering humanitarian aid.

I think it's fair to follow the money. It often does lead to ugly doings. However, sometimes those are inevitably part of a larger thing that is good. I remember smiling wryly as I learned that even as Washington was wintering at Valley Forge, members of the newly-born republic were already complaining that the people contracted to supply food to the troops were growing fat off of their contracts and not supplying good food. It was a bad thing. It did not, however, make the cause itself bad.

It's important to fight the bad. However, it's also important to weigh in the good. I'm deeply divided in the war in Iraq, and I'm not trying to argue that it's a good war. I am, however, suggesting that there is more to determining whether an action is good or not than the question of whether people we don't like benefit from it financially.

Shanglan

 

[CharleyH]

The causes, reasons, accidents, etc. that lead up to a war can always be argued.
Official speeches may simply state pretexts, and whats constitutes one is also debatable.

But the continuation of any war, likewise has reasons.

So let's look at Iraq.

Who, exactly, is benefiting from the continuance of this war? (or even consider, who is benefitting from the continued quagmire of the war--if there is one--i.e. even if the war drags on with no victory for the US.)

My first nominees are Halliburton and Bechtel.

I am not certain that any war is a benefit. I am likewise not certain that any government is a benefit to the people who elected them. In fact, we have very little liberties in our countries, some smaller than others. 'Free world' we say? Unh, huh I am sure it is free if you comply to the (much needed revamp) of law and constitution leaning on the side of judeo-christian doctrine.

Benefits? Like anything come to those in power, and at the expense of those not. No one benefitted in the first place, Pure.

I vote for Jean Paul-Sartre. Too bad he's dead. Or maybe that is better, too.

 

[Alexis Haines]

History repeats itself. The contractors benefit in Iraq and elsewhere just as they always have... by exploiting the economic vulnerability of a weaker nation under the guise of 'developing' it. In the late 1800s, thousands of foreigners poured into British occupied Egypt and millions were made under laws enacted by foreign powers designed to protect their interests.

The people who did not benefit from this influx of 'expertise' were the people of that nation. Their poverty sky-rocketed. It is the same today; and now, just as then, there was a massive rise in national militancy as a direct result. Then, it was localized street riots. Today, it is rocketry, car bombs, and suicide bombers on an international scale. The Iraq war was the West's inevitable response--not to the threat of WMD, but the rising militancy in the region.

The root cause of Islam's militancy is poverty, still. Poverty is social injustice. Poverty increases under crippling national debt, unfair trade, and the protectionist mentality of the wealthiest nations. Poverty is 'no way out' for the man, woman and child in the field and the street. Terrorism organizes wherever there's no way out.

I apologise for the polemic. Live Aid 2 is on my TV; I cried my eyes out through Live Aid in 1985 and I'm doing it again today.

Who benefits? Anybody who reads about it, thinks about it, connects the dots and tries to make a difference. That can be a terrorist or it can be an activist, a talker, a listener... or an individual posting on a bulletin board. Thanks for starting this thread.
AH

 

[Pure]

Thoughts,

Black S, said

It's important to fight the bad. However, it's also important to weigh in the good. I'm deeply divided in the war in Iraq, and I'm not trying to argue that it's a good war. [#]I am, however, suggesting that there is more to determining whether an action is good or not than the question of whether people we don't like benefit from it financially.

The question did not contain 'financially', and several early examples of Colly did not involve financial benefit. Same for mab's examples. If my first examples (and not my second set) suggested a topic of 'war profiteering, that is my mistake, for profiteers--distiguished from war-related industrial conglomerates-- are generally NOT the main engines, motive forces of war (or its continuance).

The last sentence [#] is true, of course, and the question of identifying 'people we don't like' would make the original enquiry simplistic. And 'right' actions may well generate profit (someone benefited from the occupation of Germany).

BUT It's been proposed that Osama's group is benefiting. That's one key person the war is against. Wouldn't that seem odd to you Black? Leaving aside my feeling for him, doesn't inconsistency mean something. Would benefit to a declared enemy bother you?

Another key player I nominate for benefit is Saudi Arabia. As Mab has pointed out, the question of bases is critical. They are now in SA, smaller emirates, and other places like Uzbekistan. SA has a key role in the US oil supply, and prices are rising. Saudis--not necessarily the obvious rulers and public officials-- financed the 9-11 action and supplied (with Yemen) the players. IF indeed they're benefiting wouldn't that strike you as odd?

All of this raises the question "In essence, and at the core, who is this war against?" and what is its objective? I wonder, Black, what you think the answers to those questions might be.

----
Black in full:

The question of who benefits financially always appears temptingly like the final answer to a situation. However, I'd suggest that it can also be misleading. Every change in a major policy or political situation, good or bad, benefits someone financially, and I'd go so far as to say that they will inevitably benefit more than the intended beneficiaries as well. Defense contactors benefitted financially from the production of the military hardware that liberated concentration camps. Doctors benefit financially from providing abortions. Drug companies benefit from supplying anti-AIDS drugs. CEO's of charities benefit from their salaries, often high, while administering humanitarian aid.

I think it's fair to follow the money. It often does lead to ugly doings. However, sometimes those are inevitably part of a larger thing that is good. I remember smiling wryly as I learned that even as Washington was wintering at Valley Forge, members of the newly-born republic were already complaining that the people contracted to supply food to the troops were growing fat off of their contracts and not supplying good food. It was a bad thing. It did not, however, make the cause itself bad.

It's important to fight the bad. However, it's also important to weigh in the good. I'm deeply divided in the war in Iraq, and I'm not trying to argue that it's a good war. I am, however, suggesting that there is more to determining whether an action is good or

 

[BlackShanglan]

BUT It's been proposed that Osama's group is benefiting. That's one key person the war is against. Wouldn't that seem odd to you Black? Leaving aside my feeling for him, doesn't inconsistency mean something. Would benefit to a declared enemy bother you?

I'm not convinced that he is benefittting from the war with Iraq. I think that capturing him continues to be more of an issue of how delicately we need to handle the countries he's likely to be in than a question of how much manpower we have available, and for that reason I don't see that the war in Iraq has much to do with it. I'll also suggest that if we define "benefit" as "make things less bad than they could be," then fighting D-Day before taking on the Pacific technically "benefitted" the Japanese. I don't think that that made it the wrong decision.

While I do believe consistancy to be important, I'm not in the camp that believes that, for instance, we are inconsistant by attacking Iraq and not every other tinpot dictatorship in the world. I think that in that we are realists. There might have been better choices than Iraq; I don't dispute that. Biut it's not physically possible to be consistent by taking on every rogue state on the planet at once, and I don't think it's politically viable to try to be any more aggressive in our pursuit of Bin Laden than we are. Pakistan is a country in a very delicate balance, and while it's certainly frustrating and even enraging to think about how they treat their poor, their women, and their religious minorities, the blunt truth is that it's not possible to fix all of those problems at once while also getting them to let us through their territory to hunt our own enemies. We are, however little we like it, in the unpleasant position of having to pick one or two concessions that we can wring from a man whose own Islamic hard-liners are constantly threatening civil unrest. Is it consistent to ask hold one country to one standard and others to another? No. Is it really possible to do much else? No to that as well.

Another key player I nominate for benefit is Saudi Arabia. As Mab has pointed out, the question of bases is critical. They are now in SA, smaller emirates, and other places like Uzbekistan. SA has a key role in the US oil supply, and prices are rising. Saudis--not necessarily the obvious rulers and public officials-- financed the 9-11 action and supplied (with Yemen) the players. IF indeed they're benefiting wouldn't that strike you as odd?

Not particularly. I have no love for the Saudis, but my feelings there are based on how they treat their own people and not how they treat us. Arguing that there are problems with the Saudis benefitting when some of them bankrolled the Sept. 11th terrorists would be like the British in the 1970's complaining about a deal that benefitted Americans, because the IRA drew a great deal of funding from private US citizens. What individual citizens do should not be taken as an indication of the government's policy unless stronger links are proved. Personally, I would like to see us stop pouring money into the Saudis' coffers, but really the only way to do that is to stop buying oil. The president who runs with that as his platform will not be elected, so there's little point in debating it. It is, as with other issues, a situation in which all viable alternatives involve enriching people about whom we have serious qualms.

All of this raises the question "In essence, and at the core, who is this war against?" and what is its objective? I wonder, Black, what you think the answers to those questions might be.

I think that those are perfectly valid questions. My point was that you can't answer them solely by asking "who benefits?"

Shanglan

 

[Jagged]

Seems to me all the people liberated from Saddam's tryanny. I know there are other oppressive governments around the world, but we are in Iraq now. No WMDs were found, but many people find they aren't leaving in fear of a crazy old man. The insurgences who are fighting and dying in droves in Iraq aren't profitting. They are dying fighting our nations military rather then in the streets of the United States and Europe.

But this is all about oil and money right? We could have left the tryannt in place and bought all the oil from the Iraqis and kept the price down. Could have let the corrupted oil for food program continue that made UN members wealthy. Plenty of profit there (few people can actually say they have taken food out of the mouths of children).

Starting a second democracy in the middle east is priceless. But the conspiracy is easier to believe huh? Okay.....

As July forth comes around in a few days I am sure people like you were around in 1775. The founding fathers were just a bunch of old, white, slave holding, men who didn't want to pay their taxes right??

 

[rgraham666]

In my opinion, the objectives of the war in Iraq were to ensure Shrub II went down in history as one of the Great Presidents for winning a war, to ensure the continued election of 'proper' candidates (not necessarily Republican, but certainly either neo-Marxist or religious) and to engender an atmosphere under which the Constitution can be destroyed.

The other stuff, enriching military contractors and the energy industry, is nice, but not the main thrust.

 

[gauchecritic]

Answering the opposite question, who isn't benefitting, or perhaps; to whom does the war not make any difference one way or the other, would probably be more profitable. It would also be a good question for those in power to ask themselves.

My nomination would be, the Iraqi people.

Whoever turns out to be the new boss will still be 'the boss'. However well meaning and deserving of democracy, they (for the most part) will still be Muslim. Despite the number of their children that join the police or freedom fighters/terrorists they will still have to feed and clothe those that choose to remain at home On the whole they will gain nothing nor will they lose anything.

When it's all done and dusted they will still need to eat, drink and have a home. War won't change any of that.

The problem with 'war' is that it doesn't, perhaps can't, contain the concept of compromise which is something that looms large in the people of any nation.

 

[Pure]

I think we are getting to the nub of the problem, Black, for I was about to mention Pakistan as beneficiary:

But it's not physically possible to be consistent by taking on every rogue state on the planet at once, and I don't think it's politically viable to try to be any more aggressive in our pursuit of Bin Laden than we are. Pakistan is a country in a very delicate balance, and while it's certainly frustrating and even enraging to think about how they treat their poor, their women, and their religious minorities, the blunt truth is that it's not possible to fix all of those problems at once while also getting them to let us through their territory to hunt our own enemies. [my bold, pure]We are, however little we like it, in the unpleasant position of having to pick one or two concessions that we can wring from a man whose own Islamic hard-liners are constantly threatening civil unrest. Is it consistent to ask hold one country to one standard and others to another? No. Is it really possible to do much else? No to that as well.

Shanglan

This approach of 'deal with the devil2 if you have to, in pursuit of devil1,' has--as it were--bedeviled US foreign policy for some time.

Remember this is the rationale for supporting the Mujahideen (and Osama!) in Afghanistan.

I asked about the Iraq war's objective, and I'm in agreement with mab's line: the objective is 1) US bases and 2) friendly strong regimes (esp. friendly to US companies) hospitable to US soldiers and soldiering (willing to 'help,' like Pakistan at Tora Bora). One fine way to insure 'strength' is to have it be run by the military. 1) and 2) are desired a) to ensure US hegemony in the area, and b) US control of vital resources.

In short, Pakistan-like entities are desired; their 'women's' issues and jailing of opposition (at best) is irrelevant.

This is, as it were, an analogue of US policy in Latin America, after Castro. Support any junta--e.g., in Chile--provided it's anticommunist.

Here is the problem, though, Black: Pakistan-like entities breed terrorists-- while suppressing direct attacks on the regime. Indeed they almost *need* those labeled as 'terrorist' to survive. Oddly, then the Pakistan regimes success depend on the maintenance of terrorism. It's one of those unintended symbiotic cases, like the US Drug Enforcement Agency requires the major drug exporting cartels to be active.

Gauche raises the interesting problem of 'the people.' I believe he's correct, and the above example corroborates: 'the people', the poor, the women, the rural, do not benefit in general from Pakistan's rulers, except in providing foot soldiers. Improving their position--judging by actions-- is not a US objective, nor a likely result/byproduct of US support for Mushareff.

Jagged speaks of its being "priceless" to start a second democracy in the middle east. Is there a 'first' Islamic democracy there, in the sense of universal franchise, meaningful voting, parliamentary system, etc. Maybe Turkey is the best approximation. I, for one, am going to be pretty surprised if Iraq turns out to be the first or second Islamic democracy in the middle east.


Further, if the above analysis is generally correct, establishing a democracy is neither an objective, nor a likely outcome. "Democracies" are of no benefit to the US, per se; only those friendly to US foreigh policy and business interests, e.g., that in the Philippines.

I believe that, in the limited sense of representing the people's desires, the deposing of the Shah, and the elevation of the Ayatollah in Iran were a 'democratic' moves-- understood as such by the US at the time. Yet the dangers of such direction have become rather obvious. Indeed, the Algerian situation, I believe demonstrates the same point: the military had to set aside the results of the last democratic election because of the growing popular support of the Islamist movement

In sum, Black, perhaps the alleged benefits of having a Pakistan ally are going to be much like the benefits of the alliance with the mujahideen against the "Soviet threat." In short the effort is contradictory at the core, or to put it another way, self defeating.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't actually disagree with much of what you said, Pure. I'm just curious what you imagine the alternative to be.

 

[Pure]

If I were Lord of the Universe

women would be much 'easier', but perhaps a tad more sadistic.

Black S said,
I don't actually disagree with much of what you said, Pure. I'm just curious what you imagine the alternative to be.

That's an old conundrum Black. What would a 'liberal' foreign policy look like; what would a radical or peace/justice oriented foreign policy look like? Well, as we know from Kerry, the 'liberal' doesn't look that different. The history with Kennedy and Johnson is ample testimony. To support the business empire, to ensure world hegemony through (allegedly) fighting the evil enemy, 'compromises' and 'strategic alliances' are made. IOW, lots of rightwing tin pot dictators get support, alienating the people from the benevolent US. The problem was sketched in "The Ugly American."

Too, conservatives or those in power have a way of asking for a solution to an existing mess of their own making. (L. Johnson and pals did the same.)

I should refer you to Karen AM for peace oriented foreign policy; she is of gentler spirit, and very thoughtful. But since you asked,

In this Iraq case, the 'unthinkable' , in my opinion, is the same as for Vietnam; phased withdrawal, say ¼ every 3 months. Then the chips fall where they may.

As for a radical or peace oriented (or justice oriented) foreign policy, let's say at the minimum there'd be less supposedly 'strategic' support of dictators, and less aid to tyrants and their secret police. You do remember that Saddam is in part a US creation (based on the same arguments as yours! ), for an ally against Iran.

There is always talk of 'human rights' and 'just regimes', it's just that the US rarely carries out that talk. Sorry I can't give you a Middle East solution, but maybe just a way for the US not to get 'burned' so badly, and to exacerbate the 'terrorist' problem so called (as you know, it has other names, among indigenous folk) --i.e., less support for fascists.

There is, of course, no way to maintain a world empire, dominate all other countries militarily, consume the bulk of the world's resources, etc. without getting ones hands pretty dirty. If that's the main goal, then the US-- minus a few blunders like Iraq-- is on the right track.
----

On a less universal note, I want to underscore that propping up Pakistan's dictatorship has all those ramifications which make the critical point rather clearly. If such dictatorships are the beneficiaries (or among them) of the given foreign policy we are in for a lot of trouble up the road. Indeed, Pakistan will be (more) nuclear armed. If I may speculate: the nighmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist act is likely, imo, to have links with Pakistan.

---
BTW, I don't in principle reject all "ally with the [second] devil" strategies. Given a rampaging Hitler, England and US did well to ally with Stalin, secret police not withstanding. After H's demise, then the Stalin problem can be addressed. But without getting into details, this 'ideal' scenario for 'deals with the [second] devil' does not apply to the present case. So a wiser foreign policy, liberal or radical, would be more careful in executing 'deal with the devil' strategies.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sorry, I think I asked the wrong question.

How would one address massive human rights violations in other countries?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

As far as Osama goes, I heard a guy on the radio who's an Osama expert, and he says that if you study Bin Ladin's writings and speeches and terrorist activity, you find that he has one overriding concern, and that's the removal of all western troops from Muslim countries.

According to this guy--he was the head of some think tank and had just published a book on suicide terrorism--9/11 had a very specific rationale. It was to force the United States to remove the troops we placed in Saudi Arabia in the '91 gulf war. The bombing of the US Cole was motivated by the same rationale.

Osama achieved exactly the opposite, of course, and yet the invasion of Iraq has done more to recruit new members of Al Qaida than anything he could have done himself.

 

[Pure]

questions

Hi Black,

You ask about how to address human rights violations world wide. Before I rub my magic lamp and ask Jeannie.

1)Are we agreed that benefits to Pakistan may be a double edged sword? in particular that P may well become a (better) breeding ground for terrorists?

2)Are we agreed that benefits to P will likely NOT be in human rights? (If you are optimistic, cite evidence.)

Again, I'd suggest you ask Karen AM for general world peace policy.

On the new question: I don't think there is any one answer, Black. One thing might be to elevate the issue on the US policy agenda, where, imo, it's about #15.

Today's paper has a story of a US gov attempt--collaborating with industry, not getting litigious-- to get the chocolate companies NOT to deal with Ivory Coast operations that employ child labor. It was to be (and is) a voluntary plan, and isn't working very well, at least yet. These kids of pressure are sometimes helpful.

Amnesty international works solely by publicity and petitioning. Many tinpot tyrants are remarkably shy.

The Saudi's were remarkably embarrassed at the old BBC photo documentary, "Death of a Pricess" (shooting a 'fornicatrix' [young lady of the elite with an unapproved boyfriend]with a make-shift firing squad in a back ally).

Please tell me you're not suggesting that Iraq *arose* over some state dept officials seeing Iraq high on some list of 'human rights' violators? (and figuring "Hey that would be easy to fix; knock off Saddam." Or, are you suggesting that 'human rights' objective are among the main reasons Rumfeld Cheney etc. have, for staying?

My Jeannie is not giving me any general formula, Black.....oh, wait... here's a small note appended to the last message: At least don't train and finance the secret police of the countries whose citizens you care about, or whose dicatators you want to deal with, as "the (second) devil."

Apropos: Today newpaper has a story of tortures employed in Baghdad by the US installed 'good guys,' including murder, gunshots to kneecaps, etc. Do you think things are looking up in prisoner's rights in Iraq? (If so, thank God for Rummy and Wolfowitz).

 

[thebullet]

Dr. M said:
Another group that has an interest in the War in Iraq are those that want the US to maintain a permanent land-based military presence in the Middle East.

From a geo-political perspective, Dr. M has nailed it.

We can look at these short-term reasons for the war and who will benefit. We can say that Bechtal and Haliburton are getting rich on war profits. We can say that the soldiers are getting hazard pay, etc (though I don't envy them their opportunity). We could say that GWB is avenging the assasination attempt on his father, or that GWB is trying to play a one-upsmanship game on his father.

All of these are side issues, IMHO. The establishment of a permanent American military presence in the Middle East is the real reason for the war. After all is said and done, the issue is oil. These bases, right in the center of everything over there, gives us easy military access to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, U.A.E., etc.

I'm not criticizing the Bush Administration over this particular issue. I only wish they were more forthright about it. The fact is, the world's oil supplies are finite and the end is in sight, from what I read.

Bush and the boys are trying to ensure that America gets that Middle Eastern oil rather than China or Europe. It's not the purest of motives, but from a certain point of view it is at least designed to benefit the US of A.

Unfortunately the price of this grab for military bases has been increased Arab and Persian hatred of the USA. Which in turn has lead to an increase in the # of terrorists. And probably will lead to a more concerted effort on the part of certain nations (read Iran) to create weapons of mass destruction.

After all, if you had the USA and its military might looking down your throat how would you respond? I for one would build them damn H-bombs. And work on them bio-chemical weapons. 'Cause nobody in the Middle East can top us in a straight-up conventional war, at least until Bush declares mission accomplished.

Then all bets are off.

 

[Pure]

easier, effective alternatives

Bullet: After all, if you had the USA and its military might looking down your throat how would you respond? I for one would build them damn H-bombs. And work on them bio-chemical weapons.

The 9-11 fellows did remarkably well with box cutters. And rather than an H bomb, a suitcase-sized A bomb, or even a 'dirty bomb' is already technologically feasible.

You must remember the priniciples of asymmetric warfare.

---
Most of the rest of your posting is excellent, since I've also agreed above, with mab's analysis.

 

[thebullet]

Pure said:
You must remember the priniciples of asymmetric warfare.

You've got a point. But when we start dropping bombs on Teheran, Iran isn't going to try to stop us only with a suitcase bomb in Los Angeles. They will have to try to use their own military to halt ours in the field. Since they can't do it, their only option outside of a regional mutual-security pact, is to use WMD's.

 

[Pure]

bullett

b: //You've got a point. But when we start dropping bombs on Teheran, Iran isn't going to try to stop us only with a suitcase bomb in Los Angeles. They will have to try to use their own military to halt ours in the field. Since they can't do it, their only option outside of a regional mutual-security pact, is to use WMD's.//

Again, think 'asymmetric.' I agree the neocon's are itching to 'do' Iran. But I'd say the best Iranian strategy is to welcome American soldiers into Tehran and fade to the countryside. Iran is *far* larger than Iraq. I believe Maoist/North Vietnamese, and lately Iraqi tactics could be *very effective, esp. since the populace so much dislike Americans.

As far as your specific example, if you remember the IRA and Britain, it may not have succeeded militarily, but the bombing of Harrods DID certainly get peoples attention, make them a bit anxious and aware of the price.

I personally think Syria is more 'doable' and perhaps the paleos are talking plans.