Im working semi-diligently on the combatants post, but havent got it to come out right yet (i.e. Im not impressed by the arguments Im making, and yet havent revealed interesting enough gaps in them); so was browsing around and just read the Patio Pundits take on why we should invade Iraq.
Rather than get into a point-by-point discussion (I dont disagree, I dont completely agree, Im kind of tilting slowly over the fence toward do it), I thought Id present a thought experiment.
Take a live cat, and put it in a sealed box
no, wrong experiment.
Try this one instead.
One nice afternoon, Im sitting here in my home office near the Palos Verdes peninsula when I notice a brilliant flash of light and some of my windows break.
The power goes out, the telephones, cell phones, and computers dont work. My backup AM/SW/SSB radio in the garage doesnt work, and I step onto my driveway and look toward San Pedro and see a dark mushroom cloud.
Well skip over the fact that all the electronics in the area are kaput because of EMP, and hypothesize a working TV or radio, which informs me that it appears that a small 5KT nuke has just exploded on a container ship in San Pedro harbor, along with another one in Red Hook, just across from Manhattan, and another one at the container yard in Seattle.
Well skip over the hundred thousand or so who have just died or will die at each site in the coming week, from burns and radiation poisoning, or from one of the diseases or a lack of medical attention caused by the collapse of the public health system.
My family and I are not in immediate danger, because Im maybe 10 miles from the blast center, and shielded by the mass of Palos Verdes hill, and the prevailing winds are onshore, meaning they blow the radioactive dust inland and away from me, but the next few days are pretty chaotic.
Theyve declared martial law, and imposed strict limits of transportation, because about half the refinery capacity for Southern California is destroyed or offline; the dark clouds from the burning tank farms and the smell of burning oil still fill the air. But Im upwind, so it isnt too bad. The shortage of distillates like gasoline and jet fuel will last a while, because even though the offline refineries only represent maybe 5 10% of the national refining capacity, the emergency uses have taken priority.
The economy is at a halt, both because of the martial law and because three of the five national shipping centers have been devastated and contaminated beyond immediate use, meaning that Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor and Seattle harbor on the West Coast are out of commission, as is the Port of New York on the East. They arent letting container ships into San Francisco Bay yet, and probably wont for a few weeks. NEST is setting up a scanning system on helicopters and positioned on the Golden Gate Bridge, but emergency and military supplies will get precedence, so many of the ships simply turn around and head back to Japan and Hong Kong.
Meanwhile, politics have gotten a little complicated.
There is a lot of saber-rattling going on, and everyone in national office is pretty much ready to sign any declarations of war the president asks for; he gets broad emergency powers, and habeas corpus is suspended, along with a number of other rights as large parts of the country are placed under military control.
Internationally, everyone is lining up to send aid, and the Arab countries are falling over themselves to send monetary aid and to deny any role in this.
The ships themselves were from Europe, Singapore and Hong Kong, and the origins of each container on the ships is being investigated, along with the detritus of the bombs themselves.
Saddam Hussein swears on his mothers life that he had nothing to do with it.
The President needs the resources of the military at home, to manage the martial-law driven economy, and the new demands for autarkic security, so we begin to withdraw troops from Europe, Korea, and the Middle East, trying to degrade the readiness of each area as little as we can.
There is some evidence that one of the weapons was a Russian tactical nuke, in a batch that was thought to have been in Georgia, and that Chechen militants were suspected of having access to it; they suddenly have a national treasury that is $100,000,000 richer, and it looks like some of the funds came frommadrassashawalas (thanks, William), the Middle Eastern cash banking community.
One of the weapons appears to have been homemade, and we cant figure out where the other one came from.
The pressure is on the president to do something.
The U.N. issues statements deploring the tragedy and supporting direct action against the perpetrators, as soon and sufficient evidence is found to identify who they were.
We find that some of the funds which might have paid for one of the weapons might have been paid by a Jordanian oil trader who is thought to sometimes act as a front for the Iraqi government. Weve turned a blind eye to him in the past, because the funds that went back were partially used for humanitarian purposes, and because he gave some of our intelligence assets entrée to the Iraqi underground.
Hussein goes on CNN and Al-Jazeera, and states that a conspiracy among his senior officers was responsible for this humanitarian tragedy and publicly executes them and their families on live television.
He offers to open the country to inspections by a joint French/Swiss/German inspection team, and to pay $1,000,000,000 in reparations to the U.S. once the oil embargo is lifted.
The UK offers troops to assist with humanitarian aid in the U.S.
There are fistfights in the Capitol, as the question of how to respond to this splits the House and Senate.
Got the picture??
So here are some questions for all parties.
For the hawks: How strong is the temptation to nuke somebody
anybody
who might have had anything to do with this, regardless of whether it gets the people who really planned it?
For the doves: How long after this happens does the first column come out in the New York Times that suggests that nuking Iraq wont bring back our dead or rebuild our economy, and that we should pull in, buckle down, and take care of our own?
See, I see two likely outcomes from an event like this, (which I personally dont believe would be all that hard to pull off).
One is that we go berserk, and turn the Middle East into a plain of glass.
The other is that we surrender our role as leader of the world, the economic and security benefits that come with that, and attempt to retreat into a Fortress America.
As you can imagine, I see problems with both.
What do you see as the outcome of a scenario like that? And how does it influence your thoughts on what to do today?
[10/2/02: followup discussion is here]
Date: 09/26/2002 00:00:00 AM
I don’t see the “Fortress America” scenario coming about anytime soon. Unfortunately it’s tool late for that. We’ve been attacked, and if we retreat, it will only encourage the bastards. That would go double after a nuclear strike on us.We’d either eliminate the Middle East or take it over. Nuking it would send fallout over Israel, so we’d probably go the conventional conquest route. I seriously doubt we’d need (or even want) a draft to man this effort; current troop levels plus new volunteers generated by the event would more than suffice.
Date: 09/27/2002 00:00:00 AM
I see this likely to happen if we invade Iraq and unlikely to happen if we don’t.
Date: 09/27/2002 00:00:00 AM
Speaking as one who believes that the invasion of Iraq is absolutely essential and an integral part of the War on Terror — indeed, I believe we cannot possibly win the War on Terror if we don’t go after Iraq ASAP — I have a different slant on things than others here.I do find the scenarios mentioned rather scary and rather realistic. Except for the one about Hawks going nuts and indiscriminately nuking things left and right. That will not happen–America’s Right wing is simply not that evil, and never has been.I comment more on that here, on Dean’s World. Feel free to give it a read, if interested.I’d email Armed Liberal about this directly except I can’t seem to find his email address. I may be blind, I’m not sure. %-)Dean
Date: 09/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
I gotta tell you, there’s some dots that I don’t see being connected, here. Extremist Muslim fanatics, most of whom are from Saudi Arabia, attack the US, so we have to attack the least theocratic Muslim country in the area. Our reason for doing this is so he won’t launch a nuclear attack on us, even though we have no reason to believe he has the capability to do so or even a particular interest in doing so. What’s wrong with this picture?
Date: 09/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
It’s rather odd that the choice appears to be between massive invasion and “doing nothing.” If you seriously believe invasion and violent overthrow of a neighboring country would somehow spark popular uprising in Iran, you really don’t understand what’s going on there right now. If anything, doing so would rally popular opinion behind the mullahs, not the opposite. Iranians are as nationalistic as anyone, and they certainly don’t want a huge American troop presence on their border waiting for another invasion. I find it difficult to believe that Musharraf could maintain his pro-Bush stance as well in the face of an Iraqi invasion, especially if there are large-scale civilian casualties; at least not without massive American and Indian surrender on Kashmir. This will SERIOUSLY hamper our ability track down al-Qaeda.There are better ways than invasion.
Date: 09/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
(continued…)The Arab Street will get very quiet once Iraq is over, even more silent than it was post-Afghanistan (which should have taught us something). In the Arab world of dictatorships and tyrants, the message will be crystal clear: This could hapen to you. Forment terrorism against the USA, and pursue WMDs, and you will be dragged through the streets of your capital by howling mobs after they beat you and your family to death.Now… do you really want to risk that, Mr. Arab dictator? Or would it be safer for you to round up any troublemakers who might get you in hot water and, uh, find a new way of delivering bullets to them? Syria in particular would receive this message, and act accordingly. Which removes 3 of the most significant exporters of terrorism. The only one left is the Saudis, but with Iran and Iraq flipped they’re horribly vulnerable to economic and political pressure. Pakistan still bears close watching, but right now that situation is stable and it would remain so.Result: [1] 2 major potential sources of WMDs for terrorists (nukes in particular) are gone and no longer a threat; [2] Terrorism against the USA seen throughout the Arab world as a good way to get rulers killed, hence ruthless suppression of terrorists and even incitement begins; [3] A deathly quiet “Arab street,” as a side effect of result #2. No point making oneself a target; [4] Saudi Arabia boxed into a corner, with more pressure to come.Put all this together, and the result is a massive reduction in the likelihood of Armed Liberal’s scenario ever coming to pass. Given that all of the alternatives I’ve seen thus far amount to either “do nothing” or “continue with modified forms of measures we’ve tried for the last 11 years, without any success”… it’s very hard for me to take them seriously.Sometimes doing nothing is not an option, even if the alternative carries risks. A year or so ago, a group of Americans realized that and cried “Let’s roll!” in order to protect their fellow citizens from a nightmare scenario.Now it’s our turn. Let’s roll.
Date: 09/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Why does it have to be an either/or?Our policy of nuclear deterrence/retaliation is toward GOVERNMENTS, not simply perpetrators. Sure, there would be a hue and cry to nuke someone, ANYONE, but I don’t think we’d follow through with it.No, we would begin a MASSIVE military campaign to ensure all terrorists and regimes that support terrorists were totally disarmed. We would ‘inspect’ with troops on the ground, and investigate with the documents seized from offices of the dead….and how is that different from what we have right now? Well, for one thing, we would institute a draft and mobilize our economy for the war. There would be none of this “yes, the war on terrorism and all that is fine, but what about the STOCK MARKET?” babble we’ve been getting from the Dems lately. And we wouldn’t even attempt to be multilateral. “You wanna help? Fine, follow me, I’m going in.” But we would get it done. We would impose martial law in half a dozen to a dozen countries, and the rest would be on the way.Ironically, despite all the comparisons of Bush to Hitler by the left in various nations, an attack like you describe could actually transform the US into a nation bent on a militant world domination.But nuking other people would solve nothing. We would go in and force change with boots in the dirt.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
In the scenario presented Iraq would get nuked. The evidence given, however nebulous, would be too compelling to forestall retaliatory action. No matter much S. Hussein pleads innocence it wouldn’t be believed, simply because no one would give credit to the notion that there are rogue elements in the Iraqi government. I also don’t see the Hill as playing any real role either-we’re talking about martial law here, and the Hill would line up so fast behind the President that it would make one’s head spin. I do not see the Fortress American scenario coming to pass-if anything this scenario is guaranteed to make the USA get very involved in hands on management of the world’s affairs.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Not to throw a wet blanket, but a surface detonation of a 5kT would not necessarily result in enough EMP to disable comm and media equipment. The explosion would have to take place at a high altitude.
Date: 09/25/2002 00:00:00 AM
Simple answer: his scenario is exactly why we need to do everything in our power to make sure it never comes to this. The fact that this is not clear to some people boggles me. Why in heaven’s name would a sane U.S. policy even allow the posibility of this scenario?At some point, you’re either serious about your nation’s existence and security, or you’re not.The fact that Iraq is building the CAPABILITY to perpetrate a scenario of this type is reason enough to get ’em – now. We don’t know how close they are, but there is reason to believe the answer is: not very far away. Waiting to find out is beyond idiotic. “Suicidal” is not too strong a term in light of 9/11.Now, what if this scenario happens, and it’s Iran/Islamic Jihad? I give the same answer. Iran’s mullahs need to go, for the exact same reason (Rafsanjani has been quoted as saying that getting Iran nuked would be OK, as long as Israel was destroyed… not a mindset we can long abide, given that Israel is only “the little Satan” in their Islamist psychodrama).The good news is, we can get the Iranian mullahs via a popular uprising. The situation is almost ready now. Control of Iraq will fan those embers, strongly, and give us an excellent base to work from that lets us (a) forment unrest; (b) supply it; and (c) credibly threaten a military riposte if the Iranian mullahs decide to try the Tienanmen Square approach to suppressing the popular revolt. Right now, we aren’t really positioned to do that… especially (c), which is critical to igniting the Iranian tinderbox.The sooner we settle Iraq, the sooner we get to the real prize: popular repudiation of the Islamist revolution’s poster child in Iran, and the end of both its support for terrorists and its nuclear program.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
>Invading Iraq is not going to save us from nuclear terrorism. It’s no guarantee, of course, but not invading Iraq will increase the likelihood of nuclear terrorism substantially.Do, please, explain how a generation of alienated Muslims constitutes any change whatsoever from the current situation.The scenario posed by AL is very interesting, if highly unlikely (multiple simultaneous untraceable surprise nuclear attacks? Much more difficult than multiple simultaneous surprise highjackings). Because there is no good response, it reinforces the question – how best to prevent it from happening in the first place? Clearly, widescale and deep change in the Mideast is the only way to prevent it. I await suggestions for achieving this change with sufficient speed without at least one military engagement. We have tried various combinations of engagement, bribery, etc. for decades, and they have failed. I fail to see how military action that is determined and sufficient can make the risk worse than it is now.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Doing nothing now will save us fromnuclear terrorism? Highly unlikely.Iraq need not be the only target or a starting/stopping point. The whole area needs to be reformed andbrought forward to the current century instead of the dark ages.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
In the given example however, Iraq would undoubtedly be attacked. I, being a Dove, would resign myself to the fact that something must be done immediately. I would prefer to see conventional warfare to impose our will on Iraq at that time, and actively seek out those who are suspected of having commited and enabled this horrendous act. I would hate to see the lobbing of more nuclear weapons. The impact of which will harm all peoples of the world. As for my current stance, I favor giving Iraq and Saddam Hussein enough rope to hang himself with. He is already on the road to such. Alas, our own president is doing a disservice to his own ends. Mr.Bush’s speech before the United Nations was not at all what it seemed, for his administration immediately began to discredit the promises by the Iraqi governemnt to submit to unconditional inspections. We may presently be seeing this commitment by the Iraqi’s fall to pieces, alas, Mr.Bush has proven that his intent wasn’t to see the resolutions adhered to, but to work towards an excuse, and an acceptance of an invasion into Iraq. The goal is clearly regime change, not simply elmination of weapons of mass destruction.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
If this scenario came to pass, I actually think we’d do both:We’d nuke Iraq and then retreat into Fortress America to lick our wounds.Although I see Haifa as a much more likely target than anyplace in the US. And, yes, I think we’d go nuclear on anyone who nuked Israel. In fact, I think we should disavow a first strike ourselves and make our publicly stated policy that we’ll nuke any country that uses itself (for any reason). Fear of the US (and only fear of the US) would keep India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran (which’ll eventually get nukes) from ever using their weapons.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Umm … what if we invade Iraq and this happens … except it’s Hizbullah and Iran?Or if we invade Iraq, which alienates an entire generation of young Muslims, which reinvigorates al-Qaeda, which gains access to a tactical nuke through newfound Chechen recruits? Invading Iraq is not going to save us from nuclear terrorism.
Date: 09/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
A similar scenerio has been running through my head lately. There were many calls for nucleaur retaliation after 9/11/01. This particular type of attack I beleive would result in just such an attack. Killing more innocents in Iraq than would result from taking action now to possibly remove the threat. We can only hope that a premptive conventional war with Iraq will remove the threat. Doing nothing now would consign many innocent civilians in the Middle East to horrible retribution.
This is an outstanding report. You realy do express your feelings. Even if they’er stupied.